Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KINGSTON UPON HULL CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

KILMARNOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Kilmarnock Corporation," presented by Mr. James Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 131.]

LEITH HARBOUR AND DOCKS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Leith Harbour and Docks," presented by Mr. James Stuart; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 132.]

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST GERMANS (KIDNAPPING)

Sir D. Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that, on 22nd June, Russian troops and East German police crossed the frontier into the British Zone near Helmstedt and kidnapped 40 West German workmen whom they forced, at the point of a gun, to march to a house some 300 yards away on East German soil, and that they were exahustively questioned by Russian officers; and what protest Her Majesty's Government has made against this violation of the frontier.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): I am aware of this incident. Protests were made to the Russian authorities by British representatives on the spot and the return of the detained Germans was demanded.

Sir D. Savory: Would my hon. Friend mind speaking up? I cannot hear.

Mr. Nutting: I am afraid that I cannot emulate the voice of my hon. Friend. I am aware of this incident. Protests were made to the Russian authorities by British representatives on the spot and the return of the detained Germans was demanded. The Germans concerned were returned within 24 hours.

Sir D. Savory: May I ask my hon. Friend whether the identification papers were given back? They were taken away and not returned, and I should like to know whether they have now been restored.

Mr. Nutting: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give me notice of that question, or perhaps I could find out and communicate with him.

Oral Answers to Questions — KOREA

British Prisoners (Communications)

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further approaches he has made to the Soviet, Chinese and North Korean authorities, with a view to establishing regular communication with British prisoners of war in Communist hands in the Far East and securing for them normal rights and privileges.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): The position remains as stated in the first part of my reply to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) on 26th May. The Soviet and Chinese authorities decline to intervene in matters which they say fall within the province of the North Koreans. The only liaison with the North Korean authorities is by way of the armistice negotiators.

Mr. Maclean: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the denial to our prisoners of all normal facilities is causing widespread concern in this country?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I am aware of that, and the only good news which I can give to my hon. Friend is that I think there has been some improvement in the delivery of letters lately. I think rather more letters have been getting through.

Mr. Snow: Have the Government received any offer from the Government of India to act as intermediary, and, if not, would the Government consider approaching the Government of India so to act? Thirdly, is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that when this House last debated Korea there was some concern in many quarters that no mention was made of the previous offer by the Government of India to act?

Mr. Lloyd: This Question deals with communications with British prisoners of war. I have no reason to believe that mediation by any neutral power would be of the slightest value. For example, we have the International Red Cross, and in this regard they have so far been quite useless.

Mr. Shinwell: Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman any information which indicates that relatives of any of our men who are prisoners of war in Korea are receiving letters from the men?

Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid I have not that information with  now, but I will try to let the right hon. Gentleman know.

Major Beamish: Could the Minister of State say whether the Dean of Canterbury had any time off from picking up bugs with chopsticks to inquire into the position of British prisoners of war?

Bacteriological Warfare (Allegation)

Mr. Profumo: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take steps to procure from the Dean of Canterbury the evidence of the use of germ warfare in Korea which is in his possession, with a view to the matter being discussed in this House.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have no power to oblige the Dean of Canterbury to produce the evidence of which he has spoken.
However, from what has appeared in the newspapers today, it is clear that the very reverend gentleman has no valid

evidence at all; our view that these charges are baseless has been emphatically confirmed.

Mr. Profumo: As my right hon. and learned Friend's answer indicates, as I rather thought it would, that there is not the slightest shred of credible substance in the evidence which was given by the Dean, will my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that in this unholy outburst the Dean inflicted three slashing wounds on the British public, first of all, by gratuitously presenting the Communist propagandists all over the world with further vile material; second, by sewing seeds of doubt and misapprehension in the minds of our less knowledgeable folk; and third, by filling the hearts of the vast majority of people with very burning indignation that a high dignatory of the Church should be able to bear false and treacherous witness and still be permitted to remain in Holy Orders?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not make a speech on this.

Mr. Profumo: I was asking a question, Sir.

Mr. Lloyd: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that this sort of propaganda could be very dangerous. I think in this instance it has not been dangerous.

Mr. Profumo: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Wyatt.

Mr. Wyatt: Is it not a fact that most people regard the Red Dean as a very good joke and not worth bothering about?

Mr. Profumo: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory fact that it appears that no one will rid us of this turbulent priest, I give notice that I shall raise this matter again at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions were given to our delegates at the Security Council of the United Nations Organisation on the question of germ warfare.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the published records of the statements made by the United Kingdom delegate in the Security Council


discussion which are, of course, available in the Library of this House. These statements were based on his instructions.

Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not agree, in view of the Communist allegation about germ warfare—[An HON. MEMBER: "And the Dean's."]—that it would be a good thing to give instructions to our delegates to the United Nations to press for the complete abolition of bacteriological warfare research in this country and in America? [HON. MEMBERS: "And Russia."] Well, bring in Russia, too. In view of the fact that America is spending 17 million dollars on bacteriological warfare research, and we have a bacteriological warfare station at Porton in this country—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like to hear this bit—will not the Minister ask our delegates at the United Nations to press the International Red Cross to call for the shutting up of all these bacteriological warfare stations in every country?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the first step to take in regard to this matter of germ warfare is to have an impartial investigation into those allegations that have been made about Korea, and then we can consider the next step.

Lord John Hope: Would it not be a good idea if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) were to start by abolishing the bees in his own bonnet?

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the Russian veto on the proposed impartial investigation into the allegation that the United Nations forces in Korea have conducted germ warfare, he will instruct the British representative on the Security Council to propose that the matter be referred to the General Assembly under Article 10 of the Charter.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government have noted with profound regret the action recently taken by the Soviet delegate on the Security Council in vetoing a proposal by the United States delegate that the International Red Cross should be allowed to conduct an impartial investigation into these allegations, which we believe to be baseless. Her Majesty's Government see no reason why the matter should be allowed to rest there, and they will associate themselves

fully with any further action which it may prove possible to take to bring about an impartial investigation into these charges.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Government bear in mind that these allegations of germ warfare affect the good name and moral authority of the United Nations as a whole, and in view of the fact that the General Assembly is the parliament of the United Nations, will he not give an assurance that so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned they will do everything possible to get it before the General Assembly?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree entirely with the first part of the supplementary question. The only point is that the Assembly does not meet until some date late in October, and we should much rather have the matter cleared up before then.

Mr. S. Silverman: In order that we may see the full facts of the matter before us, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that the reason for the Russian veto was that the Council had previously refused to grant any representation at all at the inquiry to the principal accusers, namely, North Korea and China; and is it not very difficult to regard, or to expect other people to regard, an investigation as impartial which denies a hearing to the principal accusers or the principal witnesses?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not agree at all that that was the substance of the Soviet veto. That explanation was put forward as a pretext, but I am perfectly certain that the fact of the matter is that they are not willing to have these charges investigated.

Mr. Henderson: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer the suggestion contained in the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary? Surely, in the event of an impartial inquiry, evidence would be heard from the North Koreans as well as from the Chinese.

Mr. Lloyd: Of course evidence would be heard from all parties in an impartial inquiry.

Political Situation

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the present constitutional position in Korea.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Yes, Sir. On 4th July the South Korean National Assembly passed, by 163 votes to nil, with three abstentions, a compromise Constitutional Amendment Bill with the following provisions, among others: a bicameral National Assembly to be elected by popular vote; the President and Vice-President to be elected by direct and secret popular vote for a term of four years; the Prime Minister to be appointed by the President with the consent of the Assembly; the Cabinet to be appointed by the President on the Prime Minister's recommendation, and to be confirmed by a simple majority vote of the National Assembly. I understand that these amendments will come into force at once and that the direct election of the President by popular vote will be held by 14th July.

Mr. Edelman: Is it not a case that these amendments were made under the duress of Mr. Syngman Rhee, and in those circumstances do Her Majesty's Government propose to continue to recognise Syngman Rhee's Government as the properly elected constitutional Government of South Korea?

Mr. Lloyd: I think these proposals represent a fair compromise between the parties, but what we should like to see is that they should be followed up by the removal of martial law and the holding of the trials before civil courts.

Prisoners (Screening)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now make a statement indicating the legal basis of the screening of the North Korean and Chinese prisoners of war.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No legal basis is required for the screening of prisoners of war. By Article 17 of the 1949 Geneva Convention every prisoner of war "is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information." This, however, only specifies what a prisoner of war is bound to give. It constitutes no limitation on what he may give voluntarily.
There is nothing in the Convention to prevent questions on other matters being addressed to prisoners. The sole effect of the Convention is that if a prisoner refuses to answer questions on other

matters, the captor must accept this and not try to extract further information.
From the inquiries which I made in Korea, I am satisfied that no attempt was made to extract from prisoners of war information which they were not willing to give.

Mr. Driberg: While I am very glad to have got that answer out of the right hon. and learned Gentleman at last, could he explain why he has been so silent and evasive in this matter in the past, and particularly why on 25th June he referred me back to an answer of 23rd June which contained no reference whatever to this subject?

British Deputy Chief of Staff

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Prime Minister what will be the precise nature of the duties assigned to the British Deputy Chief of Staff appointed to General Mark Clark's staff; and what will be his means of communication with Her Majesty's Government.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Winston Churchill): I hope to make a statement on this subject before Parliament rises.

Mr. Wyatt: Can the Prime Minister say whether this officer, if he thinks that some military action which is contemplated might have serious political implications, will be able to communicate his views to Her Majesty's Government before such action takes place?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid the hon. Gentleman did not hear me. Let me read my answer again. "I hope to make a statement on this subject before Parliament rises."

Mr. Shinwell: But in preparation for this statement can the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended that this officer will replace Air Vice-Marshal Bouchier the present liaison officer?

The Prime Minister: All that might be relevant to the statement which I hope to make. Whether it is relevant or not, I am not sure.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINESE GOVERNMENT (BRITISH COMMUNICATIONS)

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many communications he has addressed to the


Chinese Peoples' Government since 1st January, 1952; and to which of these he has received replies.

Mr. Nutting: Between 1st January and 27th June, 1952, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Peking addressed 134 communications to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Of these, 18 called for no answer; one was officially answered in writing; and 66 were not answered in writing, but elicited the appropriate action. The remainder were neither answered nor apparently effective.

Mr. Maclean: Does my hon. Friend consider that this score is satisfactory?

Mr. Nutting: We certainly consider that we should maintain a representative in Peking, for the time being at any rate, because we consider that he can perform a useful function in assisting to maintain the morale of the British colony in China.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

Suez Canal (British Tankers)

Mr. F. Maclean: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Egyptian Government is now allowing British tankers, bound for Haifa, to pass through the Suez Canal.

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is in a position to make a statement on the refusal of the Egyptian Government to permit British tankers to carry oil for Haifa through the Suez Canal.

Mr. Nutting: So far as I am aware, the situation in this respect has not changed since the reply given by my right hon. Friend to the hon. Members for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke) and Leicester, North-West (Mr. Janner) on 30th January.

Mr. Maclean: What action are the Government taking to safeguard our rights in this matter?

Mr. Nutting: This matter, as my hon. Friend knows well, is not the only problem with which we have to deal in the Middle East, nor, indeed, the only problem with which we have to deal in our relations with Egypt. I would ask the House not to press for immediate action in this particular case. We shall certainly continue to do our best to ensure

that international law and British interests are upheld.

Mr. Janner: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that international law is being broken here? It is a very serious matter in so far as we are concerned. Will he not do something to press the matter a little in view of the fact that it has been before the House for such a considerable time?

Mr. Nutting: The Security Council, as the hon. Gentleman knows, passed a resolution asking the Egyptian Government to honour their obligations under the 1888 Convention. So far no action has been taken in this matter, but I would ask the hon. Gentleman to believe that Her Majesty's Government will do everything possible to get a solution of this problem. It is complicated by other issues, and we do not wish to press it above certain other problems that are outstanding between ourselves and the Egyptian Government.

British Funds (Transfer)

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the delay in the transfer of money from Egypt to this country standing to the credit of British subjects who lost their employment in that country; and whether he will make representations to the Egyptian Government for these transfers to be expedited in view of the hardship to those concerned.

Mr. Nutting: I am aware that there have been delays in some cases. Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Alexandria has already been instructed to give any help that may be needed to expedite the consent of the Egyptian Government to these transfers. He has within the last few days made further representations to the new Egyptian Prime Minister on this matter.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: In cases where all the Egyptian tax requirements have been satisfied, can my hon. Friend say how long he anticipates it will take the Egyptians to allow this money which has been accumulated over the years by the hard work and thrift of these unfortunate people to be transferred to this country?

Mr. Nutting: As I have already told my hon. and gallant Friend, we have made continued representations to the Egyptian Government to expedite a settlement in cases where all the other formalities have been cleared up.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that these people have been really very badly treated, and is it not possible for his Department to do something about it pending a settlement with the Egyptian Government?

Mr. Nutting: We have offered all help—

Mr. Stokes: Except cash.

Mr. Nutting: —in any legal costs where action before a court may be required, and we have offered help with the Egyptian authorities. We are aware of the very grievous nature of the hardship in certain of these cases. Of course, if any application were made to Her Majesty's Government for financial assistance, that would certainly be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAN MARINO (WAR DAMAGE CLAIM)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will issue a White Paper, or circulate in HANSARD, a statement, giving details of the claim for compensation by the Republic of San Marino, with the replies thereto of Her Majesty's Government, and indicating the basis on which it was calculated that £26,000 would be an adequate sum.

Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir. I am circulating a statement with the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:
The original claim of the Government of San Marino for compensation from H.M.G. amounted to 732 million Italian lire, made up as follows:—

Lire


Damage caused as a consequence of the Allied air raid of 26th June, 1944, and successive bombings, ascertained and valued
122,000,000


Damage caused during the German occupation
89,000,000


Damage caused by actual warfare on the Republic's territory (gross estimate)
501,000,000


Damage from occupation by Allies (gross estimate)
20,000,000


Total lire
732,000,000

In reply, H.M.G. repudiated any legal liability for the damage caused in San Marino on the grounds that the neutrality of the Republic had previously been violated by the Germans. Allied Military authorities had in fact accumulated, before the bombing raid of 26th June, 1944, evidence of the violation of the San Marinese frontier by German troops, and of the use of the railway there for the movement and storage of munitions.

After further correspondence, H.M.G. while still maintaining this view, offered, out of consideration and sympathy for the sufferings and losses caused to the citizens of the Republic through the use of their territory by the Germans, an ex gratia payment of £26,000 in final settlement of the matter.

This figure was arrived at in the light of an assessment of the 1944 bomb damage made by the Allied Military Government's Political Liaison Officer stationed in the Republic at the time of the Occupation.

The offer of £26,000 was repeated on three subsequent occasions, in June, 1949, March, 1950, and May, 1951; on the last occasion a time limit of six months was set.

The Government of San Marino then modified their claim to cover only the damage resulting from the aerial bombardment. For this they had originally claim 122 million lire. In presenting the modified claim, however, the Government of San Marino arbitrarily multiplied the figure of 122 million lire by six. They also asked for H.M.G.'s support for a claim they intended to make against the German Federal Government.

On 3rd June last H.M.G. replied, again rejecting any legal liability, but repeating their offer of an ex gratia payment, the offer being limited this time to a period of one month. They also stated that they were precluded by the Paris Agreement of 1946 from making, either on their own behalf or on behalf of other states, further reparation demands on Germany pending a definitive German settlement.

Oral Answers to Questions — DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY (FOREIGN EMBASSIES, STAFF)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when it is proposed to put into effect the recommendation of the inter-departmental Committee on State immunities in regard to local nationals employed by foreign embassies.

Mr. Nutting: I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave him on 21st May. These discussions are still in progress.

Mr. Davies: But this Report was issued just over a year ago. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Commonwealth countries' representatives here are in an unfavourable position by comparison with


foreign representatives, and will remain so until this Report is carried out?

Mr. Nutting: I entirely agree that we are proceeding as slowly as the late Government proceeded in this matter, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that while we have every intention of putting these recommendations into effect, there are certain problems arising as to whether we can do so by legislation or by executive action. These are the problems which we are at present investigating.

Mr. Davies: How can the hon. Gentleman say he is proceeding only as slowly as the last Government when the Report appeared in July, 1951, and the General Election took place in October, 1951?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does my hon. Friend realise that the country is very disturbed at the vast number of increases in immunities granted to foreigners, much as we like them for Commonwealth people?

Oral Answers to Questions — SUDAN (CONSTITUTION)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date it is proposed to hold a general election in the Sudan; how soon thereafter, and by what instrument, the transfer of power to a Sudanese government will be effected; and how soon he anticipates that the interim period of self-government will be followed by self-determination.

Mr. Nutting: The present position of constitutional development in the Sudan is that the Governor-General has submitted a draft self-government statute to Her Majesty's Government and to the Royal Egyptian Government. This statute is now being examined by Her Majesty's Government. Under the provisions of the statute, elections for the Sudanese Parliament will take place when the statute comes into force. The draft statute also provides that following on elections a Sudanese Council of Ministers responsible to Parliament shall take office.
As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my right hon. Friend on 15th November last, to which I have nothing to add at present.

Mr. Driberg: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is regarded as probable that the general election will be held in October, and can he say whether he saw the very important interview in today's "Daily Telegraph," in which Sayed Abdel Rahman el-Mandi Pasha expressed some anxiety lest the dragging on of the Anglo-Egyptian negotiations should delay that general election?

Mr. Nutting: As regards the second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, my attention has been drawn to that report. I do not think there need be any substance in those anxieties. As regards the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary, I should prefer at the moment to go no further than the Foreign Secretary went in saying that the Government hope that by the end of this year the self-governing constitution will be effected.

Oral Answers to Questions — EXPORTS TO SPAIN (CIVILIAN AND MILITARY MATERIAL)

Mr. Wyatt: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what diplomatic exchanges with the Spanish Government preceded the lifting of the ban on the sale of arms to Spain.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: None, Sir.

Mr. Wyatt: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman really mean to say that he is so anxious to placate the Franco Government that he is giving them these arms without their even asking for them?

Mr. Lloyd: As was indicated to the hon. Gentleman the other day, there is no question of trying to placate the Franco Government. These matters were looked at from an economic point of view and in the interests of the people of this country.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state whether there were any consultations with any other country before a reversal of policy of this nature was undertaken? For instance, did we consult our N.A.T.O. Allies and the Commonwealth?

Mr. Lloyd: We consulted one of our N.A.T.O. Allies.

Captain Soames: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell the House whether


he has any information to show that the previous Government consulted with any other friendly Governments before selling jet bombers to Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — HUNGARY

Deportations

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement on the action he has taken in regard to the recent forced deportations in Hungary which are in contravention of the Human Rights Clauses of the Hungarian Peace Treaty.

Mr. Nutting: Between 21st May and 20th July, 1951, at least 24,000 people were deported from Budapest. No further deportations seem to have taken place until June of this year, when several hundred families were moved from towns in North-Eastern and Western Hungary. Deportations from towns in various parts still continue.
Information concerning these deportations is being included in the evidence of breaches of the Human Rights Clauses of the Hungarian Peace Treaty which Her Majesty's Government will be submitting shortly to the United Nations in accordance with the General Assembly's Resolution of November, 1950.

Mr. Davies: While appreciating that this matter is being brought before the United Nations, may I ask the Minister whether in the meantime we are consulting with the other signatories and are making separate representations to the Hungarian Government to show how public opinion feels in this matter?

Mr. Nutting: I think the best way of approaching this problem is first to submit the evidence to the United Nations in accordance with the request made by us in the Assembly in November, 1950. The next step will rest with the United Nations, but Her Majesty's Government have every intention of seeing that the fullest publicity is given, and, if possible, that every step is taken to mitigate these horrible actions.

Mr. Stokes: Can the Minister state in general to where these deportations are taking place?

Mr. Nutting: They are being moved, in the main, from strategic areas to other areas—

Mr. Stokes: In Hungary?

Mr. Nutting: Yes—where these populations will not interfere with the strategic plans of the Soviet Union.

Major Beamish: Will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of issuing a White Paper or something in the near future describing the numerous violations by the Hungarians, the Bulgarians and the Yugoslavs of the Peace Treaty so that the British public may be kept informed?

Mr. Nutting: I will consider issuing a White Paper when this evidence about all the breaches concerning the Human Rights Clauses of the Peace Treaty has been assembled and submitted to the United Nations.

Armed Forces

Sir D. Savory: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the fact that the strength of the Hungarian army has been increased from four infantry divisions in 1949 to 20 divisions, including three armoured and two air force divisions; and whether he will request Her Majesty's Ambassador at Budapest to draw the attention of the Hungarian Government to Section 1, Article 12, of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary signed in Paris on 10th February, 1947, and to lodge a protest.

Mr. Nutting: I am aware that the military forces in Hungary greatly exceed the limits prescribed in the Peace Treaty. I do not, however, consider that the proposal made in the second part of my hon. Friend's Question would produce any useful result.

Sir D. Savory: Is my hon. Friend aware that the increased military preparations on the frontier and the laying out of vast airfields under Russian engineers is causing very serious apprehension in Yugoslavia?

Mr. Nutting: Yes, Sir, I am certainly aware of that, but I do not consider it would serve any useful purpose to protest to the Hungarians about this. As my hon. Friend probably knows, the procedure laid down in the Treaty for dealing with disputes in connection with the execution of the Treaty requires, in the first place, joint action by the British, United States and Soviet Missions in


Budapest. So far, the Soviets have, of course, declined to associate themselves with any protest or action by Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Snow: In connection with Hungarian soldiers, where are all the musical comedies in which they can perform?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF FOOD

Eggs

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Food in view of the discrepancy between the increased production of home-produced eggs and the official egg allocation, what progress has been made in the special investigation by his officials into this problem.

The Minister of Food (Major Lloyd George): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Coventry. South (Miss Burton) on 2nd July.

Mr. Dodds: That answer is not good enough. Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that the black market in eggs has risen to tremendous proportions with the change of Government, and that it is the general opinion that even large poultry keepers are breaking the law? Is he not aware that people are looking to him to take action to bring some of these culprits to book and not to de-control eggs, which may mean that people get less eggs than before?

Major Lloyd George: The answer to which I referred said that I was looking into this question at the moment. With regard to the question of the black market having increased since this Government came in, all I can say is that the allocation of eggs is practically the same this year as it was last year.

Mr. Dodds: It is not.

Major Lloyd George: The allocation per ration book is just what it was last year, having been slightly above it at the beginning of the year. The figure was 62, which is practically the same as last year. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said, until we have developed a new scheme it is either a question of de-control or increased inspection.

Mr. Dodds: The Minister in his own words said that there were as many eggs given out this year as there were last year, but is it not a fact that in the aggregate the number is many millions more, and therefore they are going to the black market?

Major Lloyd George: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. Egg production is less this year than it was last year.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Food the price paid by his Department for shell eggs to producers in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Poland and Eire, respectively.

Major Lloyd George: The current price to home producers for first-quality eggs is 4s. 6d. per dozen. It would be contrary to practice to disclose the prices my Department is paying to over-seas suppliers.

Bacon Factories (Capacity)

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Food the present weekly capacity of bacon factories in terms of the intake of pigs per week; and what was the average number of pigs per week offered to the bacon factories in the months of April, May and June this year.

Major Lloyd George: During April, May and June bacon factories have killed about 91,250 pigs per week and have used about 71,500 of these for bacon production. This is about the maximum weekly curing capacity at present for pigs slaughtered at the factory. In addition the factories can cure a quantity of imported frozen sides.

Mr. Renton: Do not the facts which my right hon. and gallant Friend has just given clearly show that if there is to be that increase in pig production for which he hopes there should be at least another factory in the country to handle the increase, and would he say what steps he contemplates taking to encourage the building of such a factory?

Major Lloyd George: We are taking every possible step under the limitations of capital expenditure, and, as my hon. Friend probably knows, we have decided on one at least, provided we can get the capital facilities.

Sugar Beet Factories

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Food whether he is aware of the vital need for building another sugar beet factory in the south of England in order to maintain the present level of sugar beet production in this country; and what steps he is taking to encourage the building of another such factory.

Major Lloyd George: It is more economic, given the present limitations on capital investment, to increase the capacity of existing factories. This is being done under the present reconstruction programme.

Mr. Renton: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend quite sure that the increase in the production of existing factories will simplify the immensely complicated transport problems which now exist, and will anything be done towards cutting down the cost of transport of sugar beet to the factories?

Major Lloyd George: We will do anything to cut down cost because it adds to the ultimate price, but the sugar beet grown in the southern counties is about 5 per cent., and we are, in fact, engaged now in reconstruction so as to get greater sugar extraction from the existing acreage.

Pigs (Marketing)

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the loss incurred by pig keepers unable to dispose of their pigs due to foot-and-mouth restrictions, he will consider raising the optimum weight at which the maximum price is payable for the duration of the outbreak.

Major Lloyd George: We are continuing in force until further notice an interim price schedule which is more favourable in the case of heavy pigs than that agreed with the National Farmers' Unions at the last Price Review.

Mr. T. Williams: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that far too many of the pigs at present being marketed are too heavy and too fat, at least when they are required for pork?

Major Lloyd George: I agree that is one of the troubles and is the reason for the new schedules, but there is also the

hardship involved when farmers, through no fault of their own, are compelled to keep pigs back, and it is with a view to meeting these rather special circumstances that this present schedule is being kept in force.

Mr. Williams: Are we to understand that these increased prices are only for specified areas where there has been an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease, or for the whole country?

Major Lloyd George: I should like notice of that question.

Food Subsidies

Mr. Deedes: asked the Minister of Food what level of food subsidies would be needed now to keep the cost of food where it was in April, 1949, when the subsidy ceiling was fixed at £410 million.

Major Lloyd George: If the prices of the main subsidised foods were reduced to the levels ruling at 1st April, 1949, I estimate that food subsidies of something over £800 million a year would be required. I cannot make a more precise estimate owing to changes in ration levels and in the range of subsidised food.

Mr. Deedes: Do I understand that the price of food passed on to the consumer between that date and the end of last year is something in the region of £400 million, which is considerably in excess of the reduction for which this Government is held responsible?

Major Lloyd George: The actual figure is nearer £475 million.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House what was the extent of the increase in prices for imported food between the two dates referred to in the question?

Major Lloyd George: I have not that figure separately. There is a definite proportion which I have not in my mind at the moment, and that is the nearest answer that I can give to the question.

Mrs. Mann: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when the free private enterprise traders are to be sent out to bring us in some cheaper food?

Major Lloyd George: As soon as we can get more stability.

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food the total amount of the food subsidies for the financial year 1951–52.

Major Lloyd George: About £415 million on the latest estimates.

Condemned Meat, London

Mr. F. Willey: asked the Minister of Food how much meat has been condemned in London as unfit for human consumption in the past two weeks; and how this compares with the corresponding figure for last year.

Major Lloyd George: During the fortnight ended 5th July a total of about 42 tons of meat and offal was condemned. In the corresponding two weeks last year less than half a ton was condemned.

Mr. Willey: Does not this show the necessity for more cold storage and freezing accommodation?

Major Lloyd George: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He will, however, appreciate that that is a very large capital commitment. The existing cold storage is being used to the utmost capacity and, as he knows, this was not unknown before the war.

Mr. Royle: Would it not be better to spend money on cold stores and their equipment rather than waste all this meat?

Major Lloyd George: I agree entirely. But this is quite exceptional. Of this 42 tons, 35 tons occurred in the very hot week ending 5th July, and when the weather broke on the Wednesday night we had practically no loss at all.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what has happened to the 35 tons of meat?

Major Lloyd George: I am perfectly certain that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not get it in his rations.

Horsemeat Prices

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Minister of Food whether, as a further measure to control profits arising from the slaughter of horses, he will reimpose maximum retail prices for horsemeat.

Major Lloyd George: Price control was ended in March, 1950, on the recommendation of the Rosebery Committee,

mainly because it was so difficult to enforce.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Minister aware that there has been an enormous and quite unjustifiable increase in the amount of horsemeat during recent months, and that if it is not checked it will soon be almost worth while to send Derby winners straight to the knacker's yard? Is it not time that this control was reimposed?

Tomato Imports

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food what import restrictions he has placed on the import of tomatoes; and to what extent prices have been increased because of his action.

Major Lloyd George: I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a joint announcement by my Department and the Agricultural Departments issued on 19th January last giving details of the restrictions on imports of tomatoes during 1952. It is not possible to estimate what prices would have been without these restrictions.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that, since these restrictions were imposed, in Glasgow market housewives have had to pay much more, particularly for tomatoes, and will he bear in mind that housewives are bearing a very great burden just now?

Major Lloyd George: The fact is that this particular commodity is subject to violent fluctuations in price according to the output. The price in the first two weeks in July was 4s. 6d. per 12 lb. less than it was last year, and also less than it was the year before. That is because we had a very hot spell and tomatoes came forward at a very great rate, and prices dropped enormously.

Food Prices

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food the number of items of foods increased in price, which he has not yet announced including any others consequential to the increases in price of the items already raised.

Major Lloyd George: The list of subsidised foods, the prices of which have been or are to be increased, was given by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor


of the Exchequer when opening his Budget. I have no further consequential increases to announce.

Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there was a further list issued, which appeared in HANSARD of 11th June, relating to 27 further items which had been increased in price, and can he say what are the consequential increases on these 27 items?

Major Lloyd George: The only point about the consequential increases is that which I announced the other day in respect of meat and manufactured meat.

Mrs. Mann: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman admit that an increase of 33 per cent. in the case of flour is bound to have consequential increases on bread, cakes, cookies, buns and so on?

Sausage (Ingredients)

Mrs. Mann: asked the Minister of Food what regulations he has made regarding what may be used as ingredients in sausages.

Major Lloyd George: The principal change which I introduced by the Meat Products (No. 2) Order, 1952, was to abolish the provision for reckoning skimmed milk powder and vegetable fats as part of the minimum meat content.

Mrs. Mann: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that that very negative procedure in regard to the component parts of the sausage leaves the door wide open—[Laughter]—leaves the sausage skin open to be filled in, as I am told by my constituents, with breast of lamb which is 1s. 2d. per lb. and bread which is 4½d. per lb.? Yet the housewife is charged 2s. 9½d. Cannot the right hon. and gallant Gentleman take steps to control the component parts of the humble sausage?

Major Lloyd George: I do not think anybody in my position has ever been able to control the components of the sausage. It is well known to be one of the most difficult and mysterious things in our daily life. The object of this Order was to improve the sausage, and I think it is doing so.

Confectionery

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Food why the new price schedule for

confectionery was precipitately withdrawn; and if he is aware of the confusion and uncertainty this action imposed on confectioners.

Major Lloyd George: I have neither issued nor withdrawn a price schedule. I recently decided to defer for the time being an increase in confectionery prices to consumers pending further information about the future level of production.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say when he is likely to come to a conclusion about the matter?

Major Lloyd George: I shall have to look into the matter. I cannot come to a conclusion until I am satisfied about the figures.

Meat Ration Increase

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Minister of Food whether he is now able to make a statement about the next increase in the meat ration.

Major Lloyd George: Yes, Sir. The meat ration will be increased from 1s. 7d. to 1s. 9d. on 20th July.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: While thanking my right hon. and gallant Friend for that encouraging reply, may I ask him whether he has any further ration increases to announce?

Major Lloyd George: The House will know that I have already made an announcement about tea, which is to go up by ½ oz. on 15th July. I have already announced to the House that later in the year the butter ration will have to come down by 1 oz.; that will take place in August, but I am glad to say that I shall be able at the same time to increase the margarine by an equivalent amount.

Mr. Royle: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say what ration increase this would represent at the old price?

Major Lloyd George: If we bring it down to one common level, the 1s. 9d. now is equal to 1s. 5½d. at the old price, which represents an increase of 3½d. upon the is. 2d. ration this time last year.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: What is the comparison with the ration this time last year?

Major Lloyd George: I have just explained that the ration is a little more than it was last year in quantity.

Mr. Rankin: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us exactly what the quantitative increase is?

Major Lloyd George: I cannot work it out now, but I have brought the figure down to the same denomination as last year, and when I say that it is 3½d. up it is that much more meat.

Jam Making (Sugar)

Mr. Vane: asked the Minister of Food what estimate he has made of the additional foreign exchange involved in making sweet coupons for July, August and September valid for 1 lb. of sugar per month instead of sweets, to meet the urgent need of those wishing to make jam.

Major Lloyd George: About 7 million dollars. My hon. Friend will recollect that arrangements have already been made for a bonus of 1 lb. this month.

Mr. Vane: In view of the great advantages not only to those who want to make more jam but also to the growers who are somewhat anxious about the disposal of a very heavy fruit crop, cannot my right hon. and gallant Friend take some emergency action to obtain more sugar even if it has to be done at the expense of such things as films and tobacco later in the year?

Major Lloyd George: I would, of course, do anything I could to improve the position, but my hon. Friend will appreciate that the question which he has raised goes far beyond my Department. It is a far wider subject altogether.

Mr. Vane: Will my right hon. and gallant Friend consult his right hon. Friends to see whether the suggestion is practicable?

Major Lloyd George: My hon. Friend's suggestion is not at all an easy one. It would he extremely difficult because we should have to provide stocks not only to meet the sweet ration but also to meet the needs of those who wish to exchange their rations for sugar, and that would inevitably lead to a large expenditure. However, I am anxious to do anything I can to assist in this difficult matter.

Plum Imports

Mr. Renton: asked the Minister of Food how many tons of plums will have been imported from abroad during the months of July and August.

Major Lloyd George: Imports of plums are arranged by private trade and I am unable to estimate the quantities likely to be imported. On balance of payments grounds, a quota of £170,000 has been announced for imports for the period 1st June to 31st December, 1952, as compared with imports of £617,000 in the same period last year.

Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware that this answer will be welcomed by the growers as well as the consumers, by the growers because they have such a large crop of which to dispose, and by the consumers because they will be in a position to take advantage of the large crop as this gives it a better chance of being picked?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

Defence Equipment (U.S.A. Purchases)

Mr. Albu: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence what proposals have been received from the United States Government for the offshore purchase of British defence equipment.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence (Mr. Nigel Birch): Orders in this country by the United States Government for defence equipment have already been placed to the value of over £20 million. Discussions are still proceeding and it is expected that further substantial orders will be placed.

Mr. Albu: In considering offers of this nature, will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of his right hon. Friends to the danger of interfering with the long-term developments of our markets in engineering products?

Mr. Birch: The object of the American off-shore purchases is to build up a potential in Europe for armaments production, and it is of advantage to this country that these orders should be placed.

Mr. Albu: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that if these orders are very greatly extended they will not interfere with deliveries of British engineering products and possibly cause us to lose many markets which are at present being built up abroad with very great difficulty?

Mr. Birch: I do not think there is any danger of that kind in the current discussions.

Retired Officers' Pay

Mr. Legh: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he can now make a statement about increases in the retired pay of retired officers of Her Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Birch: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hollis).

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence whether he will set up an inquiry to hear evidence from those retired officers of the Services who, by reason of their retirement date, were excluded from the pension and retired pay increases which have been granted to officers with a later retiring date.

Mr. Birch: No, Sir.

Mr. Marlowe: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs and that these unfortunate officers are almost the only section of the community which has had no increase of any kind whatever? Many of them have fought in two wars and a great number of them are receiving less pension than they did 20 years ago. The principle of increased pensions has been recognised in other Departments, and my hon. Friend really must do something about it now.

Mr. Birch: I very well realise that many of these officers are suffering considerable privation, but the late Government drew this line—a line had to be drawn somewhere—and my hon. and learned Friend will be aware that under the Pensions (Increase) Bill a number of these officers will benefit.

Mr. Marlowe: My hon. Friend is surely aware that only those now getting

under £10 a week will benefit and that those getting more than £10 a week will get no advantage from the Pensions (Increase) Bill? Will my hon. Friend realise that the fact that the last Government did this is no excuse for his maintaining it now?

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when this was discussed by the late Government it was understood that it would be considered along with increased pensions for other retired persons? Now the Government have brought in a scheme of that kind is it not possible to associate these people with it?

Mr. Birch: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, quite a number of these officers will be assisted by the increase that will be made under the Prerogative Instruments parallel with the Pensions (Increase) Bill when it becomes an Act. At the moment I can say nothing more. My noble Friend is receiving a Parliamentary delegation on the subject on the 21st of this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — HONG KONG

Constitutional Reforms

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on constitutional reform in Hong Kong since May, 1946; what measures of local government have been introduced; and wht proposals have been made for the election of members to the Legislative Council.

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Oliver Lyttelton): A recent development has been the re-introduction of the election of two members to the urban council. The Governor of Hong Kong has just arrived in this country and I shall be discussing constitutional questions with him during his leave.

Mr. Rankin: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in view of the happenings in the Far East today, this is not a very good advertisement for Britain's shop window of democracy in that part of the world, and does he not think it is time that it was a little better illuminated?

Fish Marketing Board

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on the Hong Kong Fish Marketing Board, indicating what proportion of the fishermen own their boats and what proportion have mortgages through debt; and what plans have been considered for the organising of co-operative retail shops for the selling of the fish and a co-operative wholesale department for the export of the fish.

Mr. Lyttelton: I am consulting the Governor on the subject and will communicate with the hon. Member as soon as I have received the reply, when he may care to put down another Question.

Mr. Rankin: I did hope that the right hon. Gentleman would have given me an answer to the supplementary which I put to him on the previous Question. In regard to my second Question, could the Minister tell me when the letter was sent seeking this information?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have not got the date here, but the general information on this is readily available in annual reports. The hon. Gentleman asked me to get him certain statistics, and I am very willing to get them, but they are not readily available.

Mr. Rankin: The impression is that this scheme about which—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not say what his impression is.

Mr. Rankin: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this scheme, about which we boasted a great deal, is falling to pieces because of the lack of Government action? Will he look into that aspect of it?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have already said I am getting the hon. Gentleman the statistics, I cannot answer general questions.

Chinese Cultural Delegation

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what facilities were given to the Chinese Cultural Delegation on their visit to India at the invitation of the Indian Government when they passed through Hong Kong; and if he is aware that, on their return to China, the delegates were denied access to their friends in Hong Kong.

Mr. Lyttelton: The usual facilities were given to this delegation when it passed through Hong Kong, both on the outward and return journeys. There was no time limit on the delegates' stay, and they were not denied access to their friends in the Colony.

Mr. Rankin: I must ask the Minister to inquire into this a little more closely because my information, which is authentic, is that this delegation, on its return from India, was refused time to visit friends in Hong Kong. Would the Minister inquire more closely into it?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have already inquired and have given the hon. Gentleman the result of my inquiries. On its return from India the delegation had a great deal of luggage and they asked whether arrangements might be made for a special through coach to be attached to the train from Kowloon to the border. That request was granted and the necessary arrangements were made by the Government of Honk Kong. I think that is a sufficient answer to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Rankin: Would the Minister say whether or not it is true that this delegation was only allowed to remain in Hong Kong for two hours of the return journey?

Mr. Lyttelton: I have already said that there was no time limit on the delegates' stay.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFRICAN TERRITORIES (MAIZE PRODUCTION)

Mr. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what are the factors which prevent the expansion of maize production in East and Central African territories except at the expense of other crops.

Mr. Lyttelton: African peasants grow most of the maize in East and Central Africa and in general they are already cultivating as much land as they can. Maize is also grown on larger farms, mostly by Europeans, in Kenya and Central Africa. The war-time demand for food produced locally led to the growing of maize at the expense of other and sometimes preferable crops. Higher yields per acre are the key. For this better cultivation is being encouraged and experiments are being made with hybrid maize and fertilizers.

Mr. Russell: Is it not a fact that large sums of money have to be spent in buying maize not only for this country but for other parts of the Empire, and would it not be desirable to grow much more in the Empire than we are doing at the present moment?

Mr. Lyttelton: That raises the very wide question of whether other crops are not more appropriate.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUBBER INDUSTRY (WAGES)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the detrimental effects that the fluctuation in the price of rubber has upon the smallholders and the wages of the plantation workers, and that it is creating both economic and political instability; and what action he is taking to prevent wages falling below a reasonable subsistence level.

Mr. Lyttelton: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the implications of the recent fall in the price of rubber. Fresh negotiations on wages were opened in June but have been temporarily suspended. Compromise proposals advanced by the Commissioner of Labour are now being considered by both sides, who are, I am confident, approaching the problem with a full sense of their joint responsibilities both to the industry and to the workers.

Mr. Awbery: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the industrial agreement for the rubber workers ceases to operate when the price of rubber drops below one dollar, and that it is at that figure at the present moment and as a consequence the standard of living is likely to fall very low indeed for these men? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to introduce legislation fixing the minimum rate below which the rubber workers' wages will not fall in Malaya?

Mr. Lyttelton: These matters must be left to local negotiations. As I understand it, the present scale is there until new arrangements have been made.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult with the High Commissioner as to the practicability of providing some scheme to secure the stabilisation of wages in Malaya, for any drop in wages now will have political repercussions?

Mr. Lyttelton: This is one of the matters which I discussed at great length with the High Commissioner when he was here.

Mr. G. Longden: Will my right hon. Friend agree that while in the long run we cannot take more out of a pot than we put into it, as is now being shown in the, tea industry in Sumatra, in the present circumstances which obtain in Malaya would it not seem to be an unpropitious moment for lowering wages?

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE (LOCAL GOVERNMENT)

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the large increase in the electoral roll of the Singapore Legislative Council and the growing interest being taken in civil affairs, if he will consider increasing the number of elected representatives on the City Council and on the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Lyttelton: An increase in the number of elected members of Legislative Council is to be considered shortly. A similar increase in the City Council will, I understand, be considered when decisions are taken on the recommendations of Dr. Hill who recently reported on local government in Singapore.
The Singapore electoral rolls show large increases but registrations are still only about a quarter of the potential electorate.

Mr. Awbery: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that it would encourage the people of Singapore to take a greater interest in civil affairs if there was a periodical review of representation in the Legislature as well as an increase in the number?

Mr. Lyttelton: I think the hon. Member would be exaggerating if he thought there was very much pressure because the total electoral roll is about 68,000 out of a potential electorate of 250,000.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMISSIONER-GENERAL, SOUTH-EAST ASIA

Mr. Awbery: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies when the present term of office of the Commissioner-General of South-East Asia expires.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in view of the imminent termination of the period of office of the Commissioner-General for South-East Asia, what new appointment is contemplated to this office.

Mr. Lyttelton: The extension of Mr. MacDonald's term of office announced earlier this year was not for any fixed period. No decision has yet been taken regarding his office.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that it is reported in Singapore a month ago that Mr. MacDonald was to retire at the end of this year and that General Sir William Slim will take his place? Would the right hon. Gentleman deny or confirm that statement and, if it is true, does he think it desirable that two Generals should be in charge of this part of the Empire?

Mr. Lyttelton: I am not prepared to add to my previous answer, nor can I add to my duties by denying every rumour that appears in the Singapore Press.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the right hon. Gentleman at least say whether it is intended that Mr. MacDonald is going to continue indefinitely in this office?

Mr. Lyttelton: No one in this life continues in anything indefinitely.

Mr. J. Griffiths: In view of the fact that the General has been appointed as High Commissioner, is it not now desirable to ensure that there shall be a political representative in the area?

Mr. Lyttelton: That point hardly arises out of the Question, but I am fully aware of the political implications of the right hon. Gentleman's question.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. L. M. LEVER: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Government is aware of the claims of the Manchester College of Technology, with its existing status and developments now taking place, to be accorded recognition as an institute of university rank in order to keep Britain in the forefront of technical development and to help us in world markets; and if he will take steps to

ensure that the college receives such recognition.

Mr. Lever: On a point of order. Last week I put this Question down to the Prime Minister for Oral reply by him. I see now that without my consent it has been numbered No. 88 and is addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It has reference to the future of the Manchester College of Technology, and whilst I shall welcome a reply from the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided it is a favourable one, I would have preferred that the favourable reply would have come from the lips of the Prime Minister himself.

Mr. Speaker: Questions are frequently transferred departmentally to the Minister concerned.

POLIOMYELITIS, ETON (PRECAUTIONS)

Mr. McNeil: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Health what official advice his Department gave to the headmasters of Eton and Harrow when they consulted his officers about the desirability of quarantine measures arising from the recent case of poliomyelitis at Eton.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Iain Macleod): My advisers consider that it would be wise, in all the circumstances, to avoid the wide dispersion of Etonians which would be involved in the customary Long Leave at the week-end and also to limit their attendance at the match at Lords to those who are actually taking part in it. I have so informed the College authorities today, and I understand that they accept this advice. I should perhaps emphasise that this does not mean that there is any new development. The situation is still as it was, and all the normal precautions are being taken in the College.

Mr. McNeil: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that this courageous but unpleasant decision, plainly taken in the public interest, will be exceedingly well received.

Mr. Mitchison: Will the hon. Gentleman take care that similar restrictions are put on Harrow and that there is no discrimination?

Mr. Marlowe: Will my hon. Friend also see that the boys get a bit more holiday to make up for the lost time?

WAR PENSIONS AND ALLOWANCES (INCREASES)

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Heathcoat Amory): I desire, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, to make a statement about some changes in certain of the allowances and pensions payable by my Department. These changes are in line with impending improvements in National Insurance benefits.
The special allowance which is payable to a war pensioner who is under treatment for his war disablement and who does not receive sickness benefit under National Insurance, will be increased from 26s. to 32s. 6d. a week. The allowance for his wife or adult dependant will rise from 16s. to 21s. 6d., and the allowance for his first child from 10s. to 10s. 6d.
The increase in the allowance for a dependent wife from 16s. to 21s. 6d. and for his first child from 10s. to 10s. 6d. will also apply in the case of a severely disabled pensioner receiving the unemployability supplement, at all times, whether he is undergoing treatment or not.
The allowance for constant attendance which a 100 per cent. disabled war pensioner may receive will be increased. The normal maximum will go up from 20s. to 25s. and the exceptional maximum from 40s. to 50s. with appropriate increases in grants below these maxima. About 9,000 pensioners receiving the attendance allowance will benefit from this change.
I am also glad to be able to announce some increases for war orphans who have lost both parents. The basic pension rates (that is, the amounts payable automatically before any supplementation which I am empowered to make) will be increased from 13s. 6d. to 15s. for children up to the age of 15, and from 20s. to 21s. 6d. for children aged 15 and over. The rate for the invalid orphan

over 18 years of age will be increased from 26s. to 32s. 6d.
The estimated cost of these improvements is £308,000 a year. The increased rates will be brought into effect at convenient dates in the latter part of this month, except the increases in the orphans' pensions to 15s. and 21s. 6d., which will come into force in September. The increases will be made automatically and application will not be necessary.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does the Minister's statement mean that he either has not yet decided upon, or has decided against, revision in the scale of the parents' pension paid in respect of deceased ex-Service men?

Mr. Amory: I have that matter under consideration and hope to make a statement about it a bit later.

Sir I. Fraser: Is my hon. Friend aware that these arrangements will give very great satisfaction to those concerned? May I ask whether the third of a million which, I think he said, these allowances will cost comes out of the £10 million foreshadowed in the Budget or whether it is additional?

Mr. Amory: The total of these increases will exceed £10 million.

Mr. L. M. Lever: While appreciating the new benefits to be afforded to the particular classes concerned, I would ask the Minister whether he has considered the claims of the older pensioners, as submitted by the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's association, and will he take immediate steps to see that something is done for that category of ex-Service man?

Mr. Amory: I have that very difficult problem well under consideration, but I am not in a position to make any announcement about it at the present time.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

BRITISH MUSEUM (AMENDMENT)

Mr. W. R. D. Perkins: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the system of appointment of Trustees of the British Museum, and to confer on the new Trustees fresh powers allowing them to lend, or to dispose of objects vested in them, subject to parliamentary approval.
This is an attempt to bring in a whole new system to the British Museum or, in the descriptive language of the Royal Air Force, to attempt to get the "bugs" out of the British Museum. With that object in view, I wish to put four proposals to the House.
The first is that we should make a start at the top and reform the whole system by which the trustees are appointed. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, are a trustee and that you are principal Trustee, a kind of overlord over all the other trustees. I realise also that if I, like the daughter of Herodias, asked for your head on a charger, I should end up in the Clock Tower. Consequently, I think I should follow the excellent example of Agag and walk delicately.
There are 51 trustees of the British Museum, the vast majority of whom are far too busy to take an active part in the running of the Museum. Some of them are backwoodsmen who long ago might have been transferred into the museum itself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name."] Every Secretary of State is automatically, by virtue of his office, a trustee of the British Museum. I cannot see how a busy Secretary of State, like the Foreign Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister, can possibly give time to looking after the British Museum. Moreover, for 199 years certain old families have had the power to appoint nine trustees to the British Museum.
This is a hole-and-corner business reminiscent of the old pocket boroughs of long ago. I cannot help feeling that the time has come to abolish this system of patronage and privilege once and for all. Therefore, I propose to spring-clean the lot. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Government."] I suggest to the House that we should use the same system as is used in the case of the B.B.C. I suggest that we should appoint seven trustees only, that they should be

appointed for five years by the Government of the day, and that they should not be eligible for re-appointment.
My second proposal is that these new trustees should have power to lend any objects vested in them for public exhibition anywhere in the world. Today the British Museum cannot lend any of its objects to any other museum in this country, in the Commonwealth or in the world. We propose to make a change and, subject to the approval of this House, to allow the British Museum to loan any of these objects, not only to museums in this country, but to museums in the Commonwealth and in the world.
There are in the British Museum today many objects which are in fact rubbish and which are unsuited for the purpose of the British Museum. The trustees have no power to sell them off. The Government, in their British Museum Bill, suggested that the trustees should have a free hand to sell off these objects but, as they were given to the trustees, who accepted them on behalf of the nation, it is only right that permission should be obtained from this House before any sale takes place. My third proposal, therefore, is to allow the new trustees to sell off anything they like, provided they first obtain consent from this House.
My fourth and last proposal is this. I understand that many objects in the British Museum are infested with destructive organisms. Apparently the trustees are guilty of neglect and they have never heard of modern insecticides. Obviously it is desirable that these objects should be destroyed at the earliest possible moment. Therefore, I am suggesting in my Bill that the new trustees should have power to destroy these objects after they have obtained permission from this House.
This is a constructive attempt to reform the British Museum. I know it is just possible that we may not be able to get it through this Session. However, I ask the House to let me get it printed because it will be an ideal Private Member's Bill for the future.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Perkins and Lieut.-Colonel Hyde.

BRITISH MUSEUM (AMENDMENT) BILL

"to amend the system of appointment of Trustees of the British Museum, and to confer on the new Trustees fresh powers allowing them to lend, or to dispose of

Orders of the Day — CIVIL LIST

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

3.45 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,

1. That there be charged on the Consolidated Fund as from the last demise of the Crown the following annual sums (subject to adjustment in respect of parts of a year):—

5
For the Queen's Civil List: £475,000;


For retired allowances: such sums as may be required for the payment of retired allowances granted by Her Majesty or by His late Majesty to or in respect of persons who have been members of the Royal Household;


10
For Civil List pensions: such sums as may be required for the payment in each year of Civil List pensions already granted and Civil List pensions hereafter to be granted, so, however, that the aggregate of the pensions granted in any financial year shall not exceed £2,500 a year;


For His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh: £40,000, in substitution for any sum payable to him under the Princess Elizabeth's and Duke of Edinburgh's Annuities Act, 1948;


15
For the benefit of the children of Her Majesty, other than the Duke of Cornwall for the time being: in respect of each son who attains the age of twenty-one years or marries, £10,000, and in the case of a son who marries a further £15,000; and in respect of each daughter who attains the age of twenty-one years or marries, £6,000, and in the case of a daughter who marries a further £9,000;


20
For Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret: £9,000 in the event of her marriage, in addition to any sum payable to her under section six of the Civil List Act, 1937;


In the event of the death during the present reign of the Duke of Cornwall for the time being leaving a widow, for his widow, £30,000;


25
and that provision be made for continuing for a period of six months after the close of the 25 present reign certain payments charged as aforesaid upon the Consolidated Fund which would otherwise then be determined:


30
Provided that—


(i) as respects any period during which the Duke of Cornwall for the time being is a minor, the sum of £475,000 for the Queen's Civil List shall be subject to a reduction of an amount equal to the net revenues of the Duchy for the year, less—


(a) for each year whilst he is under the age of eighteen years, one ninth of those revenues,


(b) for each of the last three years of his minority, £30,000:


35
(ii) as respects any period during which the Duchy of Cornwall is vested in Her Majesty, the said sum of £475,000 shall be subject to a reduction of an amount equal to the net revenues of the Duchy for the year.

During the past 10 days hon. Members have had an opportunity of reading and considering the Report of the Select Committee over which I had the honour to preside. Therefore, I do not think that I need go through its proposals in great detail today. It will perhaps be for the convenience of the Committee if I comment briefly, according to past practice, on the main features of the Report and on its most important recommendations which are embodied in this Motion.

objects vested in them, subject to parliamentary approval," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 18th July, and to be printed. [Bill 130.]

Before doing so, however, may I invite the attention of the Committee to the first paragraph of the Report, from which they will note that the Select Committee have been afforded every facility to inform themselves of the subjects they have been considering and that we have taken in our nine sessions most valuable evidence.

The Report makes it abundantly clear that in considering the financial provision to be made for the Sovereign and the other members of the Royal Family, we


must make allowances for considerable changes of various kinds which have taken place since the last Civil List Act was passed in 1937. The Report brings this out with several illustrations which I need not repeat here. It shows the increase in the burden of public duty which now falls upon the Royal Family, and it shows the extension of the demands made upon Her Majesty the Queen and on the Royal Family as a result, among other things, of the changed relations between the Sovereign and the Commonwealth. In considering this matter, I feel sure that the Committee will bear in mind this aspect of the question, namely, the relationship of the Sovereign to the Commonwealth as a whole and the implications of that relationship.

The Report also emphasises that it is impossible to foresee what further changes may occur in the duties of the Sovereign and the burdens involved. There may well be some further simplification in the scale of the official functions of the Sovereign, and I am sure this would be welcomed, but my right hon. and hon. Friends feel that this must be left to the discretion of the Sovereign. There may also be increases in costs and prices which would cancel out any resultant saving.

In these circumstances the main task of the Select Committee was to recommend such financial provision as would, in their view, not only be adequate to enable the Sovereign and the several members of the Royal Family to discharge their duties in a manner consonant with the honour and dignity of the Crown, but also—and this is of no less importance—to relieve Her Majesty as far as possible of, among other burdens, that of any financial anxiety.

The Report of the Select Committee makes clear the importance of considering the Civil List in relation to the course of costs and prices. In paragraph 12 we set out some figures which illustrate this matter, and I hope hon. Members will give those figures their consideration. For example, the cost of living has almost trebled since Parliament enacted the Civil List for His late Majesty King Edward VII at the beginning of this century. Yet during those 50 years the provisions of the Civil List have actually been reduced. Moreover, at least half of the increase in the cost of living since 1901 has occurred in the 15 years of the last reign, that is,

since the Civil List was established at the lower figure of £410,000.

It is not, therefore, surprising—and this was a matter which particularly interested members of the Select Committee—that the Royal Household has had to undertake some striking economies in its own internal management. The Report records that the Select Committee were impressed by the evidence laid before us to illustrate how the increase in costs during the last reign has outstripped even the very substantial economies which the Royal Household put into effect during those years. I should like to assure the Committee that we took evidence on all these matters.

The Report also records that the Select Committee have now satisfied themselves that the Household is run on the most economical basis and that adequate measures are in force to maintain a continuous and a continuing review of expenditure. To that we also attached importance, because looking to the future is just as important as being sure, as we were, that the matter had been handled in an economical way in the past.

It therefore struck the Select Committee that the realistic course was to set the Civil List on an even keel at the outset of the reign and to provide it also, subject to suitable dispositions which will appear in detail in the Bill, which we shall shortly be considering, with some margin with which to deal with unforseeable contingencies, particularly those to which I have referred—namely, the course of costs and prices—and to do this at the beginning of what, I am sure, all right hon. and hon. Members hope and feel will be a long reign. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]

The Bill, which we shall be considering after the passage of this Motion, will, as I have said, contain the detailed provisions dealing with these matters, and so I will not go further into them now beyond what is described in the Select Committee's Report. I will, however, say this. Against the general background which I have sketched, the more detailed changes which the Select Committee have proposed, starting with the figure of £410,000 from the previous reign, are as follows, and I will set these out as simply as possible so that they can be followed by the Committee.

First, the Report recommends that, by contrast with the Civil List of the last reign, which provided both for His late Majesty and for his Consort, the new Civil List should more appropriately be granted to Her Majesty alone and that provision should be made for His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh at £40,000 per annum, which is no more than the sum allotted to the Consort in the previous reign, by means of a separate charge on the Consolidated Fund. On this basis, the first change in the new Civil List is a reduction to £370,000.

Second, Her Majesty the Queen has voluntarily offered to abate the allotment to the Privy Purse by £17,000 a year, which, I am sure, the Committee would wish to acknowledge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] This reduces the Civil List still further to a figure rather less than £355,000. The Select Committee, as the Committee have already shown, have recorded their respectful appreciation of Her Majesty's generous offer, and I am glad that we have shown her our own appreciation.

Third, the Select Committee were concerned to note that while, on the ordinary good employer principles, the pay of many employees of the Royal Household is periodically brought into line with current outside rates, some of the more senior members of the Household—and this we discussed at some length—and of the staff have been content for some time to accept remuneration which is lower than that appropriate to their duties. They adopted this course, so we understood, in order to lighten the increasing burden on the Civil List imposed by the rise in prices and costs during the last reign. But it is clearly appropriate that this anomaly should now be rectified and that the Civil List of the new reign should make provision accordingly. The Select Committee's recommendation is, therefore, that £20,000 should be provided under this head, which brings the Civil List back to a figure of about £375,000.

Fourth, it is suggested that, in continuation of a process which began in the last reign, the Civil List should be relieved of certain items of expenditure which can appropriately be charged to the ordinary Departmental Votes. We had a good deal of discussion on this matter, and no doubt we shall hear more of it today. We propose that the wages

of the industrial staff engaged on the maintenance of the Royal Palaces should be transferred to the Ministry of Works Vote. The Civil List will, as a result, be spared some £25,000, and the total which we have now reached is, therefore, about £350,000.

Finally, in the light of the more general considerations which I outlined in the opening of my remarks, it will clearly be necessary to eliminate the deficit at which the Civil List was running towards the end of the last reign—a deficit of the order of £30,000 a year—and to increase the new Civil List accordingly.

If to the resulting figure of £380,000, which we have now reached, we add the contingencies provision, which amounts to £95,000, which I mentioned a few minutes ago, the total Civil List provision becomes £475,000, or some £65,000, more than the Civil List of the previous reign. This increased provision would not, I think, be judged excessive even if it were considered simply in the light of the great change in the circumstances affecting the expenditure of the Sovereign, to which I have already drawn the Committee's attention. But in fact, there are two other considerations which I should put before the Committee.

First, it is not the whole of the contingencies margin which will be made available to supplement the ordinary expenditure of the Civil List. Part of it—a sum of the order of £25,000 at the maximum—is to be made available to Her Majesty to enable her to contribute towards the unavoidable expenses of other members of the Royal Family, for whom no financial provision is otherwise made. We all know how unsparingly the Royal Family give up their time and give of their enthusiasm to all kinds of public duties and activities, and we are glad to think that various younger members of the Family are now approaching an age when they, too, will be able to take their fair share of public commitments and thereby to relieve Her Majesty of part of the burden which would otherwise fall upon her.

It is simple to state that duties of this kind involve a degree of expenditure, and the Select Committee, who looked into this matter closely, have recorded their view that since members of the Royal Family, by virtue of their position near the Throne, are excluded from ordinary commercial activities—that is,


are excluded from making their living in the way that some others have to do—it is proper that Parliament should make it possible for the Sovereign to contribute towards their unavoidable expenses. I trust that this is a view which the Committee will endorse.

The second consideration which the Committee should have before it is that, in looking at the demand imposed upon the Exchequer by the Civil List proposals as a whole, we must remember the disposition of the net revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall which the Select Committee have proposed.

Not since 1910 has Parliament had to deal with revenues of the Duchy during the lifetime of a minor Duke; and conditions have changed a great deal since then. We look back upon the provisions of the Civil List Acts of 1936 and 1937, which made provision for the minority of a hypothetical Duke of Cornwall and which are not really appropriate today. On the other hand, the recommendations for the Civil List on the present occasion are, I believe, fully in accordance with the realities of our present situation.

They provide that during the minority of the Duke of Cornwall, for the time being, the net revenues of the Duchy should be applied in relief of the Civil List, subject to a certain prior charge in favour of the Duke himself. This prior charge should be regarded as available partly for his maintenance and education and partly for the accumulation of a capital sum for him on obtaining his majority.

The prior charge which the Committee have recommended is one-ninth of the net revenues of the Duchy, which on the basis of those revenues as they stand at the moment, means approximately £10,000 a year from the beginning of the reign until his 18th birthday, in 15 years' time, and, for the last three years of his minority, £30,000 a year. I trust that provision on this scale will be thought to be suitable.

The Select Committee have also recommended that, after attaining his majority, the Duke should make provision for his wife during their joint lives from the net revenues of the Duchy which will then accrue to him in full according to tradition, the Consolidated Fund being called upon only to provide the annuity

of £30,000 in the event of the Duke predeceasing his wife. The Committee will understand that one has to look a certain way ahead and that accounts for the rather long-sighted nature of my remarks in this connection.

The point I wish to emphasise to the Committee, and which should be fully seized by hon. Members, is that as a matter of simple arithmetic the balance of the Duchy revenues, after the initial prior charge in favour of the Duke, should, over the whole period of the Duke's minority—and on the assumption, of course, that the net revenues remain at approximately their present average annual level of about £90,000—amount to an accrual to the Exchequer of no less than £1,380,000. This sum, therefore, with the £17,000 a year on Class I of the Civil List which has been offered by Her Majesty the Queen, should, during the Duke's minority, almost exactly equal the contingencies margin which the Select Committee have recommended. The Committee will agree, especially if they look back to a previous understanding, that this is a settlement which the Exchequer of our day cannot but regard as favourable.

The only other points which I think I need mention are the provisions recommended for Her Majesty's children other than the Duke of Cornwall, and the treatment of Household pensions. As regards the former, the recommendations of the Select Committee follow, with one exception, precedents which are at least as old as 1910—for younger sons £10,000 per annum at the age of 21, increased to £25,000 per annum on marriage, and for daughters £6,000 per annum at the age of 21. The only innovation is the proposal that the provision for daughters should be increased to £15,000 per annum on marriage. I see that there is reference to this on the Order Paper, and I only add that I am convinced that this innovation is necessary in the light of modern circumstances and that it should be extended to Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret.

It only remains for me to mention the arrangement about the Household pensions and on that I draw the attention of the Committee to the recommendations in paragraph 25 of the Select Committee's Report. These are, I think, in general accordance with precedent.

I hope that I have now gone through all the important features of the recommendations which have been made by the Select Committee and are embodied in the Motion now before this Committee In total these recommendations constitute a very reasonable and moderate settlement which strikes a just balance and establishes a Civil List which is appropriate to the circumstances of the new reign. It is with that in mind that I commend these proposals to the Committee.

The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if the debate on the Civil List follows the same course as was followed in 1936 and 1937. If the Amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends were moved now, it would mean that the debate would be obviously restricted. I therefore respectfully suggest that there should be a general discussion on the Motion and that, when that discussion has proceeded far enough on the Motion in general, the Amendments be moved more or less formally.

4.6 p.m.

Mr. C. R. Attlee: I think that would be for the convenience of the Committee, and it follows precedent.
I have served on a number of Civil List Committees now and I and my colleagues took part in the discussions and production of this Report. The Report sets out the position rather more fully than its predecessors did, and I think that is very necessary, because people are so apt to look only at the figures and not at the content of an estimate.
When we were discussing this, I said that I was quite sure that when the newspapers came out the bulk of them would have a large heading, "£475,000 for the Queen." That is all some people see, and it does really require disecting to see exactly what is actual expenditure on the Queen and the Royal Family and what is actually the cost of upkeep of a large amount of State ceremonial.
We have seen in the course of years a good many changes in the way of simplification and of economy. Indeed, if there had not been, I think the present estimate would be something like £800,000. There has been a constant change; and I think it is very necessary that that should be in accordance with

public sentiment. In saying that, one has to consider not merely sentiment in the United Kingdom. We make provision for the monarchy in the United Kingdom, but the Queen is also the Queen of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and of all the rest of the Commonwealth and Empire. Therefore, in considering what kind of style we think is appropriate for the upkeep of the monarchy, we have to remember that Her Majesty the Queen is Queen of very widespread Dominions and of people at all kinds of different stages of civilisation.
That, incidentally, has meant in recent years a great increase in the burden on the monarchy because of the particular relationship in the Commonwealth. I think also that the increase in facilities for travel has caused an additional burden, because the fact is that the monarchy is one of the ties which unite all the various parts of the Commonwealth and it is vitally important, although it makes a very heavy burden, that visitors from all over the Commonwealth and Empire should see Her Majesty the Queen and should thus keep themselves in close contact.
We looked at this with a view to seeing what is the present position. We went into a great deal of detail, and it will be found that it has been very difficult to make very wide and sweeping economies without changing entirely the general style of today. I think that public opinion today likes a certain amount of pageantry. It is a great mistake to make government too dull. That, I think, was the fault of the German Republic after the First World War. They were very drab and dull; the trouble was that they let the devil get all the best tunes. Therefore, we on this side of the Committee believe that it is right to have a certain amount of pageantry, because it pleases people, and it also counteracts a tendency to other forms of excitement.
On the other hand, we think that there is a case for a fairly steady and constant review. Every Government always desires to make the Civil List cover as many years ahead as possible, because it does not want to be bothered with another Civil List debate. There is, further, a tendency to try to cover every contingency. Having been in office myself, I have some sympathy with that point of view. But we live in a time, not only of widely changing money


values, but possible changes in the makeup of society and the conception of what is convenient and proper.
We all hope that we are now entering on what will prove, we believe, to be a very long reign and a very happy one. Therefore, I think there is a case for saying that there should be provision for a review. In this Report we have provided for a Contingencies Fund, partly for this very reason that we do not know how prices may change. I should say also that there is a reference to the possibility of changes in the other direction from that to which we are accustomed just now—a fall in prices. It has not been put in completely optimistically; but at any rate it is something that the Chancellor might contemplate as a very distant prospect. There can be these changes. We consider, therefore, that it would be useful if there should be from time to time a review by a Committee of this House.
There is a second point. The process has been going on for some time of cutting away from the expenses of the Civil List a number of services which are, quite properly, transferred to other Votes. The advantage of transferring some of these services to other Votes is that they can be dealt with year by year as prices change. There is also the advantage that they do not swell the Civil List by the addition of a whole lot of matters which do not really strictly appertain to Royal expenditure. A very great deal of this Civil List expenditure is taken up with the cost of keeping up such places as Windsor Castle, which is a Royal residence, but which is also a great national monument—almost a museum.
One does get a rather false view of the Civil List, and I think there is a case—we had not the time to do it—for a review by a Committee of the House to see whether it is possible to transfer some other services. It may not be possible to transfer the entire control. We might find many difficult questions of control, such as whether a cost should not be transferred—in some cases with advantage as we have seen already—when the actual service has not been transferred. Therefore, we have put down an Amendment which suggests that this amount should be voted for only 10 years, and not longer than 10 years.
There is one other point on which we have put down an Amendment, and that

is a more detailed matter. We do not think that during the minority of the Duke of Cornwall, or anyway, up to the age of 18, large sums are needed for the provision for a child of his age. Those are the two Amendments which we propose to move.
I think the proposal is a great step forward in the recognition of the position of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall. Looking over other debates during the last 50 years or so, one finds that it has always been a vexed question. Some people have said, "As a matter of fact, the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall should fall in like anything else and be taken into account." Others have said, standing strictly on history and tradition, "No, these are the private property of the Duke of Cornwall for the time being." I think it is a wise decision which has been made to follow the precedent of what happened when there was not a Duke of Cornwall—although there is now a Duke of Cornwall—and when they are used for other purposes and not regarded as being solely the private property of the Duke of Cornwall.
Those are my general observations on this Report. In due course we shall move our Amendments. I should like to say that we were given the fullest amount of information and help by those who came before us.

Mr. Arthur Colegate: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, will he be good enough to explain one point which is ambiguous, and which is a purely explanatory point? His Amendment talks about granting these annual amounts for a period not exceeding 10 years. But from line 15 onwards of the Chancellor's Motion, the events contemplated cannot take place within the next 10 years. Does the Amendment mean that the first lot are to be granted for 10 years, and that from line 15 onwards, the benefits to those who attain the age of 21 are to go on for 10 years after they are of that age, or will the whole of that fall if the Amendment is accepted?

Mr. Attlee: We have put down this Amendment because we wanted to argue the general principle. If it were carried, there would inevitably be consequential Amendments which would have to appear, but we did not want to load the Order Paper with a mass of them.

Mr. James Carmichael: May I seek your guidance, Sir Charles, with regard to the Amendments on the Order Paper? Have you given the impression to the Committee that we should have a general discussion, and then in due course move the Amendment in a formal way, or do you desire a general discussion, and then a further discussion on each Amendment?

The Chairman: I think, as has happened on previous occasions, that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to have a wide discussion on the Motion, and then, when we get to the various Amendments, to move them formally and, if necessary, divide on them.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. W. W. Astor: I consider this is an extremely good Civil List for the conditions of the 20th Century, as regards rising costs and extended duties, and from other points of view. But I think there is one notable omission which I hope the Chancellor will consider. That is the situation which occurred after the death of His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent.
Up to that time His Royal Highness received £35,000 from the Civil List. Anyone who knew him knew the hard work which the late Duke of Kent put in. In a previous incarnation, about 25 years ago, I had the honour of helping to organise the first tour of the Duke of Kent in the industrial areas of South Wales and Scotland, and I saw the hard work which he put in then, and he continued to work hard until his death on active service. Then we had this tragic anomaly, that on his death the £35,000 from the Civil List completely ended; and his widow and family had to depend, not on what they received by right from Parliament, but on what they received ex gratia from the King and from other members of the Royal Family.
We all know the hard work which Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent put in during the war, in spite of this sad bereavement, as one of the leading officers of the W.R.N.S., and, since then, in charitable work. Any of us who has ever had the honour and the pleasure of having Her Royal Highness conduct any public function in his constituency will agree about how well she has done it and the infinite trouble that she has taken.
There is a mention in paragraph 4 of the Report of the Select Committee of the very small number in the Royal Family and the necessity for all members of the family to take part in public work. We know how the Duchess relieved other members of the Royal Family during the illness and in the closing years of His late Majesty the King. I appreciate that in paragraph 15 there is mention of the contingencies fund which should cover cases of this sort, but we need not be readers of Jane Austen to know how delicate are, and must be, financial discussions and provisions within even the closest and happiest of families.
Parliament and the nation should take a pride in making proper provision for people who have done such splendid work. We should not leave it to what may happen outside our knowledge, generous though the action may be. Therefore, I suggest to the Chancellor that he should think this matter over. I do not propose to put down an Amendment, because a suggestion for an increase should come from the Government, by the common consent of the whole Committee, and not from any private Member. I hope that the Committee will feel that in this case, and in similar cases in future, it is right to make some provision—say, two-thirds of the previous grant—during widowhood.

4.22 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: It is always a matter of some delicacy, on occasions like this when we are discussing the amount of money which Parliament should vote to the Sovereign and the Sovereign's Household, to say things which will not be embarrassing to the Monarch or the Household. But Parliament must examine this matter in its proper perspective. I want to say what I think about the proposals which have just been submitted to the Committee.
Hon. Members will know that in the last century these matters of the Civil List were the subject of heated controversy in the days when Parliament was differently constituted. I have no doubt that today, when some of my hon. Friends may feel disposed to query the sum proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, we shall conduct our debate with far more decorum than was shown in the days when we had a different sort of Members forming the Opposition.
I am prepared to support generally the proposals made by the Chancellor, subject to the two Amendments which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has told the Committee will be moved in due course. As my right hon. Friend said, it is just as well that the general public, who have little information on these matters—and indeed Parliament itself, except for those who take part in the deliberations of the Committee—should understand that to a great extent these amounts of money, which in themselves appear to be large, are administrative expenses mainly for the purpose of carrying out State duties.
In just the same way as Her Majesty's Ministers introduce every year their own Estimates for their own Departments, here we have another Department of State introducing estimates for the expenditure in that Department. I am bound to say when I look at some of the expenses incurred by certain other governing bodies, whether they be republican or monarchical, that I think that the British Crown carries out the onerous duties which the public expect, on the whole, economically and reasonably.
There is only one matter to which I wish to refer. It has not been mentioned so far. Indeed, it is one which perhaps will have to be considered later. Provision is made for a sum of £40,000 to be paid to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh for expenses incurred in his department. In the last reign the sum of money paid to the Consort was included in the Monarch's Civil List. But today we are making special provision for His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.
I do not know how far the Committee will think it appropriate to examine that £40,000 and to consider what it is for. No doubt a lot of it is for what one might call personal expenses, but I should imagine that some of it is for staff who will have to advise him, as the Queen's advisers advise her, on matters of State. The Government should consider very soon precisely what those constitutional duties of His Royal Highness consist of, apart from the ceremonial duties which he carries out as Consort to the Sovereign.
There is a feeling in the minds of many people, and perhaps in the minds of some Members of Parliament, that His Royal Highness is in a different position from the Consort of the late King. All who

have read or heard of some of the controversies which took place in the reign of Queen Victoria when she had a Consort know that affairs of State, in so far as the Consort was concerned, did not proceed too smoothly in those days.
I relate my remarks to the £40,000 which it is proposed should be voted to His Royal Highness. I should welcome a statement from the Government, either now, if it is appropriate, or on some future occasion, as to precisely what is the constitutional position of His Royal Highess the Duke of Edinburgh as husband of Her Majesty the Queen. Many hon. Members may think that these matters are not very important, but I can conceive that at some time they may be.
Every family knows, whether it is Royal or otherwise, that a husband is intimately involved in his wife's affairs. When they happen to be affairs of State, apart from family matters, then we as a House of Commons voting this money today—as I have no doubt that we shall—should have some precise idea as to what are to be the functions in State affairs of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. C. J. M. Alport: I cannot agree that the right hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) is correct in his assumption of the constitutional significance that would be attached to the position of the Consort of the Queen in the present case. It is true, as I understand it, that some of the £40,000 which we are being asked to vote will be used to pay essential staff, but that will not mean that that staff will be responsible for giving to him the constitutional advice which the right hon. Gentleman assumes. They will be the ordinary members of his staff who are necessary to enable him to carry out his many responsible duties.
It was the point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition to which I wanted to refer in particular. It is suggested in the Amendment, which is to be taken formally later, that the whole position of the Civil List should be reviewed and, as I understand it, this refers not only to the actual money which Parliament will, we hope, allocate to the Civil List but also the ceremony and the conduct of the monarchy generally. If the proposal is simply that the review should be concerned with the amount and


the appropriateness of the Civil List itself, I should have thought that that 10-year review was unnecessary.
If the amount granted by this Civil List were too great, then there is every likelihood and, indeed, certainty that the same generous action would be taken by Her present Majesty as was taken by His late Majesty King George VI who, when he found there was a surplus on his Civil List, made a payment of £100,000 to assist the Exchequer. If, on the other hand, the amount of money were too small and the rise in prices meant that it would be impossible for Her Majesty to carry out her royal duties with the money available, then it would always be open to her, as the Report says, to ask Parliament to reconsider the position. If, however, the purpose of this 10-year review is to consider, so to speak, the conduct of the monarchy, I do not believe for one moment that that is an appropriate way of carrying out that particular process.
It has been clear to all those who have studied the history of the relationship between the monarchy and the nation over a period of 200 years, that that relationship has changed very greatly, not because of any representations made by Parliament to the Crown but because of the sensitiveness of succeeding Sovereigns to the changing atmosphere and changing public opinion. It is quite clear that, so far as the 19th century is concerned, the character of the monarchy at the beginning of the reign of the late Queen Victoria and the character of the monarchy at the end were very different.
I have no doubt that changes will take place in the years ahead, perhaps in the ceremony and the general conduct of what I might call the business of the monarchy, but I am sure that that must depend upon the undoubted sensitiveness and sense of responsibility of Her present Majesty and upon the advice which she will have from time to time front the Prime Minister of the day. I should have thought, having had some slight experience of this, that the knowledge which can be possessed except by the most experienced senior Ministers and senior leaders of the Opposition parties of the actual problems of the conduct of the monarchy, is very small indeed.
I do not think for one moment that a Select Committee such as is proposed in the Amendment which we are to consider would achieve the results which hon. Members opposite desire. I am sure that it is far better that we should leave the matter in the full trust that Her present Majesty, brought up as she has been under the very careful example and guidance of the Queen Mother and His late Majesty, will conform to the wishes and views of the people as to the changing relationships between the Crown and the people of this country.
I should like, however, to make one point relating to another aspect of this general subject which the Leader of the Opposition raised. He said quite rightly that the Queen is now the Queen of a number of different realms. That was first recognised constitutionally, I think, in the Coronation Oath of His late Majesty King George VI. I have no doubt that it would be right on the analogy, so to speak, of the progresses of Queen Elizabeth I, when she made her famous progresses in those days through this country and as a result, for the first time in the history of the Crown, came into personal contact with the people of this country of all sorts and statuses, that the progresses of this present reign will be throughout the Commonwealth, and that there will be a far greater demand than there has ever been in the past upon Her Majesty and upon other members of the Royal family to take a more intimate part in the affairs of the Commonwealth and the Colonies.
It seems to me that one of the objects which the Committee has in view and, indeed, which the Committee upstairs had in view, was to try to reduce the heavy burden on the Queen. I should have thought that there was one way of doing that, and one way which would conform to the changing constitutional relationship which has been taking place in the British Commonwealth ever since the Statute of Westminster. After all, the status of the United Kingdom is analogous, although not exactly the same, to that of one of the Dominions. If Her Majesty is the Queen of Canada, besides being Queen of the United Kingdom, then the position of the United Kingdom vis-à-vis Canada is on roughly the same basis. I say "roughly" because there are historic differences into which I need not go now.
That being the case, as she is represented in Canada and in the other Dominions by a Governor-General, so I would feel it would be appropriate in order to relieve her of certain of her burdens here in this country and also to fill the gaps caused by her absences far more satisfactorily than can be filled under the present Regency Act, that she should have a deputy here in the United Kingdom. That deputy, or Governor-General, or whatever the appropriate title might be, would act for her during her increasing absences overseas. I believe there would be nobody more appropriate to fill that rôle than the present Queen Mother with all her unrivalled experience.
It seems to me, that it would be appropriate when the time came for the Duke of Cornwall—whom we hope by that time would be Prince of Wales, and is the Heir to the Throne—to get his tutelage in the very difficult and responsible position which he will one day, we hope, fill, that he should do so by means of acting as deputy for his mother in this country. That would enable us to escape the intimate problems which arose in the 19th century in the relationship between the Crown and the Heir.
In those circumstances, this appears to me to be a constitutional change which might well be considered at the time when the House is considering the way in which it would be possible to ensure that Her present Majesty does not suffer the damage to health and strength which undoubtedly arose in the case of her father from the very great burden which he had to bear in his time. Therefore, it is along those lines rather than along the lines of a Select Committee to review the position of the monarchy, that we would find some way of assisting in the problem with which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are concerned.

4.40 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: The novel suggestion made in the last part of the speech by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Alport) will have to be very carefully considered. I cannot feel that it is one which will commend itself universally. There are certain disadvantages in having a designated deputy, and in all these matters there should be the greatest possible degree of flexibility

in order that one may meet circumstances as they arise.
The first part of the hon. Gentleman's speech was a persuasive argument in favour of the proposal of the Government. Nevertheless, I think there is a very strong case for the Amendment which has been mentioned by my right hon. Friend that these matters should be subject to periodic review by the House. So far as I am concerned, I am in general agreement with the proposals for the present Civil List, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and others.
I think the work which has been done by the Royal Family in this country is of very great social value, and that it should be done in such a way as meets the needs of a very large proportion of the public. If it is done, it should be done and paid for in a proper way. I cannot help thinking that the proposal for a review is valuable, not simply because there are persons who hold different views—and the Amendments on the Order Paper show that there are such persons—but if only for the reason that it is valuable to have that kind of examination of this position from time to time, for which, at the moment, we are indebted to the Select Committee.
Many of these functions and expenses of Royalty are, for the ordinary person, wrapped in mystery, and it is right and proper that, from time to time, we should have the assurance, which I think we have had on this occasion from the work of the Select Committee, that the affairs of the Royal Household are conducted with due regard for efficiency and economy. Unless we have a periodic examination by the House, I fail to see how the general public is to have that kind of assurance. That seems to me to be a very important argument for having a periodic review.
We all hope that this will be a long reign. It may last for 50 years, even 60 years, conceivably, and we surely ought not to commit posterity to these expenses. But there are other reasons why I think it would be valuable to have an occasional review. I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Colchester, who suggested that there was no value in having such discussions in the House, but that we could rely entirely upon the sense and sensitivity of the Royal Family.
I would, of course, accept what the hon. Member says—that in recent years the Royal Family have shown themselves to be remarkably sensitive to changes in public opinion. Nevertheless, I think we have some duty in this Committee to give expression to the feelings which we think are those of the people whom we represent. It may very well be that there will be considerable changes in the future in social conditions in this country. After all, economic conditions may change, and other conditions may change, and it may make it appropriate for some changes to be made in procedure and in the relationship of the Royal Family to the public.
Even within living memory, there have been changes, and I am very glad that there is far less ceremonial now in connection with the social presentations at Court. I think that is one of the Royal functions that might be dispensed with altogether, and I say that for this reason. While the Royal Family naturally have their own circle of private friends and acquaintances, whom they entertain privately, and while they have their duties which concern the public as a whole—the ceremonial processions, functions and receptions by the Royal Family of persons who are in some way distinguished for work they have done—I can see no reason whatever for what seems to me to be a completely outmoded social distinction by which certain young ladies have the privilege of being presented at Court for no virtue of their own.
I may say that I am one of those who, at the proper age, might have sought presentation at Court, but I did not do so. I did not do so at that time because it was a period of extreme industrial depression in this country, and I felt that it was completely wrong, when many of my own friends in South Wales were living in conditions of poverty, that I should take part in seeking a social distinction which seemed to me to have no proper moral basis whatever. I think that in matters of this sort we wish to see that kind of restraint which I believe would be in keeping with a democratic society.
Furthermore, in looking to the future, I can see no reason why we should, at this stage, make provision for the possible widow of a child of four. There seems

to me to be a very strong argument for suggesting that future consideration should be given to these matters, so that we should not attempt to tie our successors to provisions of this kind. I would have no objection at all to the proposed allowance for Princess Margaret, who, at the present time, is of marriageable age. I am myself in favour of the proposal made by the Chancellor, if only to give her adequate freedom of choice in the matter of a husband.
There is one quite different subject upon which I venture to touch. It appears upon the Order Paper and, therefore, presumably is in order for discussion today, although it is not really a matter which is any longer concerned with the Civil List. I am referring to the Civil List pensions. These pensions, which are of very small amounts, are paid to persons of distinction in the arts, science or literature, or to the widows or dependants thereof, and they were, presumably, at one time paid out of the Privy Purse of the monarch. They are now a charge on the Treasury, and have no connection whatever, as far as I know, with the Royal Family. Nevertheless, they are included in the amounts which we are asked to discuss today.
For this purpose, we are asked to fix a definite sum in perpetuity of £2,500, beyond which no new grant of pension may be made in any one year. Where the major sums which we are discussing today are concerned, the Chancellor has said that there should be a contingency fund to provide for increases to meet the rise in the cost of living, but, where these very small pensions for very distinguished persons or their dependants are concerned, there is no such arrangement, and no contingency fund or any alteration in the possible scale of allowances.
I have been examining in the Library the list of persons to whom such pensions were given last year. There were 51 payments made during the year, of which only four were really new pensions. All the remainder were additional sums paid in order to bring the original pension up to what seemed to be a more appropriate level in present circumstances. Because additional sums have to be paid, presumably, there was some feeling in the minds of those responsible for these matters that they must be cautious, at least, in making entirely new grants to deserving persons.
I understand that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling) may be moving an Amendment to omit the definite sum on the Order Paper, and I would myself wish to support that. I think that, in this matter of rewarding those who have spent their lives in un-remunerative work in the arts or sciences, we have a certain duty towards them, and I should feel that it is only proper to take the course that is suggested. I hope that matter may be taken into consideration by the Committee.

4.50 p.m.

Mr. Ralph Assheton: As a Member of the Select Committee, I should like to make one or two points this afternoon. I shall not keep the Committee for more than a few minutes. I support the proposals which the Select Committee has put forward. They were considered with care, and I think that most hon. Members will be in agreement with them. There is, of course, a good deal to he said for the proposal made in the Amendment put down by the Opposition Front Bench; I can see the attraction of a 10-year review, and I think many of us were impressed with the fact that there are advantages in it. On balance, however, my own feeling is that it would tend somewhat to bring the Crown into the field of controversy from time to time, and that is something which I should prefer to avoid.
There are two points which are not, I think, fully understood by the public. One is that when a new Sovereign comes to the Throne a surrender is made by the Crown of the Crown Lands. It should be remembered that the revenue of the Crown Lands is greatly in excess of the total amount voted in the Civil List, so that not only is there no burden upon the taxpayer in consequence of the Civil List, but there is a profit to the taxpayer from that transaction. I do not think that that is widely known. I have seen little or no references to it in the Press, and I think it would be desirable that the general public should be made aware of it.

Mrs. White: In making that statement, would it not be correct to say that Death Duties are not payable on the Crown Lands, and that had they been payable that position would not have arisen?

Mr. Assheton: It is quite true to say that. Taxation does not fall upon the

Crown, and in that connection I come to my second point.
Income Tax is not payable by the Crown itself, but it is not generally known that Income Tax is payable by other members of the Royal Family, although the Inland Revenue make allowances for expenses, just as they make allowances for other people's expenses. I am quite certain that the Committee as a whole endorses the view of the Select Committee. We take great pride in the Crown; we have a great loyalty to it and we wish to see its dignity properly maintained. The burden of the Crown is a very heavy one, and I should like to conclude by reminding the Committee of some words of which I myself was reminded last night by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn), words used to Parliament by Queen Elizabeth I at the end of a long reign, when she said:
To be a King and wear a Crown is more glorious to them that see it than it is pleasure to them that bear it.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Like General Eisenhower, I am a republican, and I understand that if hon. Gentlemen opposite lived in the United States they also would be republicans, because the republicans are the Tories of America. I understand that the broad general question of republicanism is out of order in this debate and that what we are concerned about is the financial provision for the Royal Family during the coming reign.
I must confess that I do not share the apparent agreement of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen about the Select Committee Report, but there is one sentence in it which I could cordially endorse, and it is this:
Every effort has been, and is being, made to reduce the burden of work, particularly bearing in mind that Her Majesty has, in addition, the duties of a wife and a mother of young children.
We can all subscribe to that, and it is because I believe that the burden both on Her Majesty and on the finances of this country should be lessened that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) and I have put certain Amendments on the Order Paper.
I am surprised that the Chancellor should come here this afternoon and sup-


port the largest wage claim of the century after the very grim warning be has given to workers in industry who are demanding wage claims. He is both Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, but today he is Dr. Jekyll agreeing to everything that has been suggested. What is more, it is even suggested in this Report that if the sums which are to be granted are insufficient the Chancellor, like Oliver Twist, will come to the House of Commons and put out his hand for more. We cannot forget that in the last few months the Chancellor has been urging the most stringent economies upon the nation.
When the Government took office, the first thing the Prime Minister did was to inform us that our economic and financial position was so grave that it was necessary to reduce the salaries of Cabinet Ministers. With the Chancellor and the Prime Minister agreeing that economy is necessary in the salaries of Cabinet Ministers, I fail to see why this mood should not have found expression in a more stringent examination of the monies to be voted in the Civil List. I do not know how the Chancellor will now be able to argue with Mr. Horner or with Mr. Figgins on wage claims, when he now agrees to this enormous wage claim after giving such grim warnings to the trade unions and employers on 16th May.
I do not know whether or not the Chancellor is familiar with the warnings given by the Prime Minister in a recent address to the Press Association, in which he said that the position was very grim and that we were standing upon a trapdoor. After that gruesome warning I thought we would have an announcement that the Coronation would take place in the Crypt. While we are on this trapdoor the Chancellor comes along and says that before the noose is put over our heads we must have a silver collection and the band is to play "God Save the Queen."
While the people of this country are not interested in republicanism, because the issue of republicanism is not immediately in issue, having nothing very much to do with poverty, I believe that there is a very strong opinion in the country that this Civil List is excessive, and that we might have seen the mood for economy expressed in its various

provisions. Not only in this country but in the United States, where the President has a much smaller salary than that outlined in this Civil List, and where the republican Administration is run with a far greater need for economy, there will be some raising of eyebrows at the very large expenditure we are at present devoting to Royalty in this country; and I do not want to hear any hon. Members opposite express any anti-American feelings in this debate.
We have to bear in mind that we are a poor nation, that we are a nation that should be thinking in terms of economies and that when hon. Members opposite are demanding a scrutiny of the expenditure of all nationalised industries they should demand economy in our oldest nationalised industry. I believe that even if we agree with Royalty we could have just as dignified a Royalty and a less expensive Royalty.
Let us take for example and for comparison the case which is most analogous to our own where there is a Queen and a Prince Consort. In Holland, the Queen receives £142,000 and Prince Bernhardt £28,000 and there is £33,000 for the upkeep of the Royal Palace. Compared with those comparatively modest sums our Civil List is simply fantastic. I have here a quotation from the "Observer," which points out that the monarchy in Holland has succeeded in becoming more democratic and in shedding a good many of the medieval flummeries and aristocratic traditions which are quite out of keeping with a modern democracy. The "Observer" states:
Juliana, as Queen, succeeded her mother and by considerable changes in the monarchial customs has increased the good will. She has shed the trappings of Royalty to a surprising extent. Both the Royal Palaces—at The Hague and Amsterdam have been abandoned"—

The Chairman: Surely this is going beyond the limits of this debate.

Mr. Hughes: It is merely a simple comparison and there is only one further sentence. It is this. The Palaces have been abandoned
for a simple country house. Curtseying to the Queen has virtually been ended and as a rule there are no ladies in waiting. Today the Dutch Royal Family mixes freely with the people and the young princesses all attend the ordinary day school in the village near their home.


I believe that to be in the tradition of this country and that if it were followed the monarchy would lose nothing in dignity and would receive just as much respect from the people.
I have details of a good many monarchies, Scandinavian and others, which show that dignity and democracy and simplicity can be observed with no respect lost to the institution if the need for economy and frugality in national finances are taken into consideration too. I believe that that represents a very large public opinion in this country and that it should be interpreted in the decisions of the House of Commons.

5.4 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Walter Elliot: Perhaps it is not unfitting that after one representative from Scotland, in the person of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) has spoken, another representative should take up the tale. I find myself in no great agreement with any of the points which have been presented by the hon. Member. The fact is that we are dealing with the Report of a Select Committee which covered all parties in the House of Commons; to which close examination was given by hon. and right hon. Members representing very different points of view; and on which a surprising amount of general agreement was reached. That is the first thing which we should remember. It is very noticeable not merely in the discussions in the Select Committee but in the speeches which we have heard so far in this Committee, that a very considerable degree of general approbation for the proposals put forward in this Report has been secured.
It is quite right, no doubt, that other views should be put forward. But I think it is only fair to say—and I am sure the hon. Member for South Ayrshire would recognise this—that the hon. Member represents the view of a very small minority in the House of Commons, and indeed in the country as a whole. I am certain that it is a small minority in our own country of Scotland, because whatever else we may say about the present Queen, none of us can forget the Scottish ancestry which we are proud to claim for her. We can claim for the present Royal Family that they are "art and part" of our country in a way which is almost a

new factor in the connection between the monarchy and the people.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) has said, there are no doubt certain advantages in some kind of periodic review although, like him, I feel that the proposal of the Opposition for a 10-yearly review has greater disadvantages than advantages. The changing value of money is a very real thing. In that connection surely the hon. Member for South Ayrshire might remember that the present proposals for the upkeep of the monarchy are very much smaller than those brought forward and passed by previous Parliaments, considering the change in the value of money.
I am not at all sure that if the same standard were applied all round to the claims which he mentioned, a solution along those lines would meet with approbation from those putting forward those claims. Again, he quoted foreign monarchies. But if he took a proportionate figure for population, and the extent of the territories, of the British Commonwealth and Empire, and applied it to the figure he gave for the Kingdom of the Netherlands, he would find that it would bring our figure to well over £1 million a year, instead of the comparatively moderate figure which is proposed.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman is putting forward a geographical argument about the extent of territories he had better be careful, because now the Sovereign is no longer monarch of India, and India is no longer a part of the Empire. That means that on that basis the Queen should receive a good deal less.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I should be willing, on another occasion, to break a lance with the hon. Member about the exact constitutional position of various parts of the Commonwealth and Empire. Meanwhile, I content myself with saying that I do not think he would be very popular, even in all parts of India, if he expressed there the constitutional doctrine which he is now putting forward to the Committee. The extent of those territories and the great population—and the duties—which go with those territories would fully justify, on the comparison the hon. Member himself has chosen, a much higher figure than is put forward in the proposals before the Committee.
When the hon. Member is bold enough to go further and claim that it would be much better to have the system which they have in the United States of America I beg him to go to the Smoking Room and read accounts of the arguments which are now going on in that country about the selection of a President and to consider whether, on the whole, our system is not actually cheaper as well as being at least as dignified.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: To make a comparison the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should rather take the cost of the General Election here and the cost of speeches made by Lord Woolton and compare that with the cost of the speeches made in Chicago.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: The rashness of the hon. Member is paralleled only by, I regret to say, his uncertainty as to the facts of the case. The election of the Congress and Senate is additional to the election of the President, and he would require to compare the former with the cost of the General Election.
As I say, he will find, and this has been worked out—it was worked out by Benjamin Disraeli long ago—considerable saving, even on the financial side, in the provision which we are making for the Head of the State in this country.
We are engaged on a very great matter. The Report is most valuable in that it brings up to the forefront the great duties which fall upon the Head of the State—the great and increasing duties which fall upon the Head of the State—in connection with the great Empire and Commonwealth of which the Queen is Head. I do not think that any of us would deny that when visitors come from overseas parts of the Empire one of the things they most keenly desire and are most greatly honoured by, is to be received by the Monarch. They go back and describe it with the utmost pleasure, even laying emphasis, if I may say so, on those very points of ceremonial and pageantry to which certain hon. and even right hon. Gentlemen take exception.
I remember entertaining, when I happened to be Public Relations Officer at the War Office, a distinguished Indian soldier during the war. That distinguished fighting man, alas, since dead, came fresh from the fighting in Abyssinia. He had the honour of being received by both the

King and the Prime Minister. He broadcast to his own country, the very country of India which has been mentioned today, about his reception here, and, believe me, the emphasis he laid was much more on the honour of having been re-received by the Monarch, than that of being received by the Prime Minister, great as that honour was.
Let hon. Members hesitate before they attempt to weaken the enormous and important though impalpable duties which the Crown performs, not merely in relation to the self-governing Dominions but to the other parts of the Empire. We take great interest, for example, in the special position of certain territories within the boundaries of the Union of South Africa—Basutoland and Swaziland. We have hon. and right hon. Gentlemen stressing the importance of their direct link with the Crown. But the link with the Crown is because it is the Crown. Let us hesitate before we weaken or diminish in any way the position and authority which the Crown has, not merely in relation to this country, great as that is, but in relation to the Empire and Commonwealth, where its significance and duties are great, and will be greater in the years ahead.
I do not think that these provisions are excessive. We shall have to defend them in our constituencies, and will undoubtedly have to do so to people to whom these sums seem great indeed. I think we can honestly do so with a full sense of responsibility. I, as a Member of the Select Committee, support the provisions here being made, and there is not one that I would not defend on a platform in the poorest part of my constituency.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Many hon. Members on this side of the House will agree with the observation of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that the figures mentioned in the Report of the Select Committee and in this Motion are very high, but I think that many of us on this side of the Committee will not come to the conclusion on the whole matter at which my hon. Friend has arrived. We shall not desire to scale down these provisions and we shall feel that any criticisms of them that may be made are sufficiently met by the Amendment put down by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
The point on which we differ from my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire is that any of us think that the emphasis of this debate, taking it all in all, should be upon the value of the Crown to this country and the Commonwealth. The whole conception of the Commonwealth as it is, and as we hope it will develop, is dependent upon the existence of the Crown. Moreover, the social processes upon which we are engaged and the social changes which we have wrought in recent years have been achieved in the particular way in which they have been achieved as a consequence of the existence of the Crown and of our Constitution as it stands, with the Crown playing a supremely important part within it.
We on this side of the Committee are, of course, all in favour of simplification and a very large measure of it. We are also all in favour of reasonable economy; and the more reasonable economy there is the stronger we think will be the foundations of the institution. I am bound to say, however, that there is plenty of evidence that those responsible recognise the importance of increasing simplification in these matters and indeed also of increasing economy. This Report, whatever else it may divulge and expose, shows that the costs with which the Report is concerned bear very little relation to the rise in prices which has occurred, and there are plenty of marks of substantial economy which stand out in this Report.
It must also be said, if we are to be realists upon this matter, that the vast majority of the British people like pageantry, and like it very much. After all, this institution represents the continuity of the British tradition. It represents a bond which is above party strife, a tie which keeps together peoples all over the face of the earth who are of different colour and of different race. I believe that it is an obvious fallacy to attempt to argue that the processes of Parliamentary democracy must necessarily be drab. Why should they be? What conceivable contradiction is there between the processes of Parliamentary democracy and the pageantry of a high historic tradition?
There are those of us on this side of the Committee who think that two of the main objectives of British policy in the

next 25 years should be, first, that we should secure in the present reign and in the coming years an expansion and extension of the influence of the British Commonwealth in foreign policy and world affairs vis-à-vis the influence of the United States of America, although we are all the time anxious to remain on the most friendly terms with the great Republic.
That is one objective which we think should be in the minds of the British people at the beginning of this reign. Another is the rapid development of under-developed areas in the world, many of which are inside the Commonwealth and many of which are outside. We believe that that development on an adequate scale is not only a great task in itself in these areas, but that it may contain in it the solution to the great economic and financial predicament which faces this country at the present time.
It is a question for the electorate whether or not we get a mandate for policies of that kind. The observation I desire to make in this debate is that if we do get such a mandate we shall find, in elaborating and working out that enterprise and that policy, that the existence of the Crown, with all it means to the British Commonwealth, will be a most beneficial and advantageous factor indeed in the situation. I think we should bear that in mind on this side of the Committee.
It would be an entire misrepresentation of the opinions and intentions of the Labour Party in a matter of this kind to say that we want to scale or pare down these provisions. I think it is a great mistake to think that radical policies, even extreme policies, require the abandonment of traditional forms. Why should they? I know of no reason why they should or why we should not maintain and hold on to these most valuable traditional forms at the same time that we set afoot the most radical and extreme policies of reform and improvements in our own country and the Commonwealth. I think the fallacy that one cannot have effective radical policies without abandoning traditional forms has been the cause of delaying many important reforms in our history.
I represent a great industrial constituency on Merseyside and I try as best


I can in the House and in Committee to interpret the views of my constituents. So far as I can understand they have many anxieties and many resentments about the present state of affairs—and many hardships, heaven knows—but I do not believe that there is any desire among them to pare or scale down these provisions.
They do not want to be parsimonious and mercenary in a matter of this kind. The plain fact of the matter, which is of great significance for the world, is that they would let none outdo them in loyalty to this great institution of the monarchy.

5.22 p.m.

Sir Edward Keeling: I want to amplify briefly what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) about Civil List pensions. I am sorry she is not here at the moment. Line 11 of my right hon. Friend's Motion limits to £2,500 the amount which may be granted in any one year in respect of new pensions. I would ask my right hon. Friend either to accept my Amendment, which leaves out that limitation altogether or, alternatively, if he prefers—and you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, will accept it—to move a manuscript Amendment increasing the amount proposed in his Motion.
Perhaps I might tell the Committee—though they probably know already—that Civil List pensions are defined in the Civil List Act of 1837 as being available for persons
… who, by their useful Discoveries in Science or Attainments in Literature and the Arts, have merited the gracious Consideration of their Sovereign and the Gratitude of their Country.
In the general words which precede that definition the pensions are available also for the widows or other dependents of such people.
Since they were first made statutory there have been great names in the list of people who have received them. I should like to give the Committee a few. There was John Dalton, the originator of the atomic theory; Michael Faraday; Mary Russell Mitford, author of "Our Village"; Paley, whose "Evidences of Christianity" some of us had to study as a condition of entry to one of the universities; Constantia Maria Wren, a great-great-granddaughter of Christopher Wren

—her father was present at the Battles of Dettingen and Fontenoy; Sir Richard Owen; Thomas Huxley; Samuel Wesley; Richard Burton of Arabia; Livingstone; Haydn, compiler of the "Dictionary of Dates"; and, coming down to more recent times, Sir Frank Benson; the widow of James Elroy Flecker; Ben Greet; the widow of Sir Charles Stanford; Lucas Malet; the widow of Dr. Bradley, editor of the "Oxford English Dictionary": and the two daughters of Sir Robert Hunter, founder of the National Trust.

Mr. James Hudson: Has the hon. Gentleman got particulars of the sums which were paid to them?

Sir E. Keeling: I have the figures. I may say that at one time the means test for qualification for these Civil List pensions was not so keen and strict as it is today.
When the Civil List pensions were first made statutory in 1837 it was laid down that the pensions granted in any one year should not exceed £1,200. I want to make it perfectly clear—because some people do not understand it—that that figure of £1,200 was not the amount which was to be granted altogether, but the maximum of new pensions in any one year. On page 20 of the Select Committee's Report we have the statement that in 1951 the whole of the Civil List pensions cost £32,000. Apart from giving that figure, the Select Committee make no reference to the matter. I believe that they did not even consider the Civil List pensions. I understand that this £32,000 was shared by 181 pensioners, giving an average of about £177 per pension.
The maximum of £1,200 fixed by the Act of 1837 was continued throughout the reigns of Queen Victoria, Edward VII and George V. In 1936, when Edward VIII came to the Throne, that admirable and courageous Member of the House, Sir Alan Herbert, suggested—in the debate on the Civil List Resolution—that the amount should be doubled, but when the Bill was brought up he changed his mind and increased the amount to £4,000.
That change of mind seems to have annoyed the then Chancellor of the Exchequer—Mr. Neville Chamberlain—who refused to countenance any increase.


Sir Alan Herbert's Amendment was rejected, on a Division. In consequence. Edward VIII then being very young, everybody thought that the figure so retained in 1936 would continue for a very long time; but in the following year Edward VIII abdicated and a remarkable thing occurred. In the Civil List Bill of George VI, His late Majesty, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, without a word, without any Motion or Amendment, increased the amount from £1,200 to £2,500, and that increase was agreed to, also without a word.
The amount of each pension is decided by the Prime Minister and, up to quite recently—certainly since the death of Queen Victoria—the maximum was £100. In the last few years, owing to the rise in the cost of living, some pensions have had to be increased. The List, which is in the Library of the House, shows—as the hon. Lady said—that 51 pensions were granted last year and that most of them were in addition to existing pensions. When those had been increased the money left was sufficient for only four new pensions. Eighteen of the 51 had themselves rendered the qualifying service; the other 33 were the widows or daughters of distinguished people. Fifteen of the 51 pensioners were men and 36 were women. The amounts granted last year varied from £275 to £10. The variation was not due to a scale of merit so much as to the financial circumstances of the recipients. As is explained in the list in the Library, this is always taken into account.
Because of the limit of £2,500 some of the pensions, even now that they have been increased, are pitifully small, and I suggest that that is not what the Committee desires. In view of the rise in the cost of living since 1936—I suppose it has certainly doubled and some people say it has trebled—the figure fixed at the beginning of the reign of His late Majesty ought to be raised, in the same way that the pensions of all other State pensioners have been raised. If the maximum total were doubled, and all the amount so allowed were used, the annual cost of the increase to the State would not exceed £30,000.

Dr. Horace King: Has the hon. Gentleman also noticed that the £2,500 is by no means all spent in the accounts which he has examined? There

seems to be room for expanding the range of pensions.

Sir E. Keeling: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets the idea from that the £2,500 is not spent, because the List shows that it is. Perhaps he will explain if he catches your eye, Mr. Hopkin Morris.
My Amendment does not fix a new amount. If it had done so, it would have been out of order. It merely makes the Chancellor of the Exchequer free to increase the amount when the Bill is produced. Alternatively, if he prefers substantially to increase the amount in his own Motion, I shall be happy to withdraw my Amendment. In either case, I hope the Chancellor will bear in mind what Sir Alan Herbert described as the spiritual foundation of a proposal for increase. That spiritual foundation is the fact that the British race has spread its literature, its art, its learning and its inventions throughout the world; and it is the last hope of many who have contributed towards that to get one of these small Civil List pensions.
It is quite true, as I am reminded, that a National Insurance pension is now available to some, though not all, of the recipients of these pensions; but it is not enough. It is also true that there are benevolent funds and charities, but, as we all know, the springs of charity in the last few years are lower than they were. Once we have accepted, as we did in 1837, the principle of pensions of this kind, I do not think we are doing our duty if we grant only the amount fixed at the beginning of the reign of His late Majesty, when not only was money worth much more but the struggle for existence in the artistic and scientific world was not so severe as it is today.
I am not suggesting that every artist or scientific man who is indigent should receive a pension. The Prime Minister decides who shall receive one, and I think there need be no fear, at any rate today, in spite of what the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson) said, that the money will be improperly disposed of.
When this subject was debated in 1936, Miss Ellen Wilkinson remarked that we largely remember a country because of the great names in its art and literature; we do not want this country remembered


by its poor treatment of its artists. And, of course, not only artists but scientists too.
We owe an increase in these pensions to distinguished men and women suffering from poverty who might have been comfortably off had they busied themselves with money-making but who instead devoted themselves to their art or scientific calling. I believe our country would bear this small extra expense gladly and proudly.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. John Parker: I do not think there are many people on these benches who are ardent republicans, but I think the great majority on these benches do not look on the monarchy in the same way as do most hon. Members opposite. We look on it as the most convenient form of running the country, more convenient than the American or some other methods, but we also think that it ought to be brought more into line with the general feeling of the age. A number of hon. Members opposite have said that the monarchy has altered its character in recent years, and I agree with that, but I think there is room for still further alteration to bring it into line with the accepted views of the country.
May I put a number of questions to the Government and make a number of suggestions? If I understand the position correctly, the Civil List was started in 1697, when King William III handed over to the Treasury the receipts from the Crown Lands and other Royal property in return for a grant from Parliament. I think there is a strong case for extending that custom by also including the Duchy of Cornwall and handing over its receipts automatically to the Treasury.
Since that time, various people have given properties and money to the Royal Family. Particularly during Queen Victoria's reign, it became the habit for many courtiers to leave their property to the Royal Family, and there has grown up quite a large fortune held by the Royal Family which is not taken into account at all in these discussions. On the accession of King Edward VIII I believe it was very substantial indeed, although I think he dissipated a certain amount of it. In my opinion, we ought to be given figures to show what the

Royal Family's income is at present, apart altogether from the Civil List. I suggest that the income from these properties ought also to be made over to the Treasury and taken into account by Parliament in deciding the size of the Civil List.
I understand that it was from these sources of Royal revenue that Sandringham and Balmoral were originally purchased, and I noticed from a Question answered yesterday—it had been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, South (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—that among the Royal Palaces maintained by the Ministry of Works, Balmoral and Sandringham are not mentioned. I should like to know bow they are maintained and what is the cost of their upkeep.
I think, also, that hon. Members would like to know whether this income the Royal Family receives from other sources is used to maintain the Duke of Windsor. We should like to know whether part of the money on the Civil List is diverted for that purpose. We know that in 1937, when King George VI became King, there were discussions about giving a grant to the Duke of Windsor. It was believed that the House would not be prepared to support such a grant, and, therefore, all such suggestions were dropped. I think we ought to be given information about all the other sources of the Royal income, because, in deciding what the size of the Civil List should be, we ought to have that information before us.

Captain Christopher Soames: Does the hon. Gentleman think that everybody's income should be made public, or only the Royal Family's?

Mr. Parker: I think the latter is relevant to the matter we are discussing. We are discussing the Civil List to maintain the Royal Family for their services; if they have large other forms of income coming in, that is relevant to the size of the grant we should fix for maintaining those Royal services.
I should like to take the question of the Royal Palaces further. We were told in answer to a Question yesterday that full maintenance and repair of Royal Palaces had been handed over to the Ministry of Works. What does that mean? If alterations are made at Windsor or Buckingham Palace by the Royal


Family, do they have to obtain the authority first of the Ministry of Works, or not?
As I mentioned earlier, Balmoral and Sandringham are not included among the Palaces maintained by the Ministry of Works. There, presumably, the Royal Family can make any alterations they wish, and finance them out of their own private fortune. What is the position, however, about other Royal residences, such as Fort Belvedere and Frogmore? Do they count as part of Windsor, or are they treated differently and maintained by the Royal Family out of their private income?
I should like some more information about the proposal made in the Civil List Report that the Ministry of Works should take over the wages of the industrial staff working inside the Royal Palaces. I think we ought to be told exactly what that means. What industrial staff is there in the Royal Palaces? What is the staff doing? Are they doing ordinary maintenance work—keeping Windsor, and so on, in repair, or not?
While I am on this point, I do think that in the present inquiry the position with regard to the Palace of Westminster ought to have been cleared up, and that the whole of its control and maintenance ought to be handed over to the Ministry of Works. There are continual difficulties at present between the people in control of different parts of this Palace. This would provide a convenient opportunity to clear up that matter.
Then there is the question of Class IV, which covers Royal alms, money for charities, and so on. I think we ought to be told what that means. In the past quite a lot of money was given by the Royal Family to help particular hospitals. Their names used to come at the head of lists of subscriptions for hospitals, and so on. With the taking over of the hospitals the need for that has disappeared, but we still find people who want to raise money for a particular charity and who like to get it put under Royal patronage and get some donation from a member of the Royal Family to put at the head of the subscription list.
I am not saying that that should be ruled out altogether, but I think we ought to be given some information of the sort of principles on which the Royal

Family do decide to subscribe to particular charities, in what cases they propose to give alms, and so on, because sometimes we do have this Royal patronage abused, and some particular charity which is not, perhaps, altogether desirable, if it has Royal patronage, does have a greater chance of raising money than would otherwise be the case.
I should also like to raise the question of the maintenance of horses in the Royal establishments. It seems to me that the number of 35 horses normally kept for all the ceremonial occasions of the Crown is a very high figure. I should have thought that it would have been possible to have had some kind of pool of horses kept in London for all kinds of ceremonial occasions. I think that that probably would be a good deal cheaper than the very large amount of money that has to be put aside for maintaining the Royal mews at the present time. Most of us are in favour of the ceremonial side of the monarchy, but I think that is a very high number of horses and a very expensive establishment to be maintained, for looking after these various ceremonial activities.
I should like to suggest that the time really has come to rationalise the monarchy and its maintenance. I do not see why we should not make to the Queen and to other members of the Royal Family wishing to do public service salaries and expenses on the line of those to the Prime Minister at the present time, or why the various Royal properties should not be completely taken over and maintained by the Ministry of Works or some other suitable Department.
Now I should like to take up those remarks made in the Report that the Committee
… noted with concern that there are several members of the Royal Family who, by virtue of their position near the Throne, are excluded from ordinary commercial activities and must, of necessity, devote their lives to public duties, and fulfil heavy programmes of official engagements. …
I quite agree that it may be desirable to use junior members of the Royal Family to carry out public duties, but why should they have to do that if they do not want to do so? I personally see no reason at all why people who are related to the Royal Family should be debarred from taking up careers of their own and taking part in business if they so wish.
At the present time we do not deal with the matter rationally. Under a Proclamation made by King George V similar to one made by Queen Victoria, the sons of the Sovereign count as princes, and their sons, but not after that. The result at the present time is that we have the young Duke of Kent and two young sons of the Duke of Gloucester who are debarred from any kind of commercial activity or any kind of career of their own; on the other hand, the two sons of the Princess Royal are allowed to lead their own lives and have their own careers. They are not princes, because they happen to be the sons of a Royal daughter instead of sons of a Royal son.
The suggestion I would make is that the time has come when the title of prince should be restricted just to the sons of the reigning Monarch, and that it should be withdrawn from, or not given to, other descendants, unless they happen to come into the direct line of succession to the Throne through the death of someone else. I think we should put them in the position where they can lead lives of their own, and—

Mr. Colegate: On a point of order. I do not see anything in this Motion about the use of titles—the title of prince—or anything of that kind. Are these remarks in order?

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): No. It is not in order to discuss titles.

Mr. Parker: I am only commenting on the suggestion made in the Report about the members of the Royal Family close to the Queen, and the fact that they are not allowed to earn their own livings or to have careers of their own, and I am suggesting that they should be able to do so in future.
I take the view that it is a good idea, if these people are prepared and want to carry out duties on behalf of the nation, that they should be in the position of being granted money from the contingency fund; but that, if they do not wish to do so, they should not be debarred from taking part in commercial activities and of living their own lives. I think that to restrict the title of prince in the way I have suggested would make it easier for them to lead normal lives and to earn their own livings if they so desire.
I think that that would be an important contribution towards rationalising the monarchy.
To sum up, I would say that many of us feel that this Report does not go far enough in trying to rationalise and modernise the monarchy. We feel it would be better if a definite salary and suitable expenses were paid to the Queen and other members of the Royal Family for carrying out their public duties, and if the other activities financed on the Civil List were handed over to the relevant Government Departments.

5.50 p.m.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): It is not, of course, my intention to close the debate, nor is it my intention to carry the matter very far along the lines expressed by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) about rationalising the Monarchy, but I thought it might be convenient, as we have had two speeches on a subject slightly out of the general stream, that is to say, the Civil List pensions, by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling) if I rose and said something about that.
It is a curious thing that these matters come within this particular Motion, because they are nothing to do with the Civil List. They are merely an authority by Parliament for the payment of certain moneys to distinguished persons, but for historic reasons this Motion has always been attached to the Civil List at the beginning of a reign. It has nothing to do with it, and I think it may be convenient to clear that out of the way.
The facts of the situation were very clearly put by the two hon. Members who spoke. The basic Act was, of course, passed over 100 years ago, in 1837, and as my hon. Friend pointed out, the figure was raised in 1937 from £1,200 a year to £2,500. When I speak of the figure, I mean the annual amount of extra pensions granted within one year. But, of course, it does not mean that only £2,500 is outstanding.
As a matter of fact, as the Report of the Select Committee pointed out, in 1951 the issue from the Treasury for this purpose was £31,790. The number of Civil List pensions at the moment is 180 and the names of the persons receiving them are available for those who wish


to see them in the return rendered, which is available in the Library of the House. These Civil List pensions are granted by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day, and the governing words of the original Resolution, passed as long ago as 1834, are that the pensions shall be granted to
such Persons only as … by their useful Discoveries in Science and Attainments in Literature and the Arts, have merited the gracious Consideration of their Sovereign and the Gratitude of their Country.
They are given, as I say, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister to such persons or their dependants, because it may be widows or daughters, who are in need of financial help. They are not given as an award, as a decoration so to speak, but in consideration of the need for financial assistance. Therefore, it happens that the pensions which are granted during any particular year consist of two classes.
There are totally new pensions and there are increases of existing pensions, and, of course, the great bulk in every year in which the increases are available is due to changes in circumstances and to any increase in the cost of living, and so on. In that way the increases in the cost of living since 1937 have been largely met owing to the increased annual amount available as the result of Parliament's decision in that year. In fact, the average pension is now double what it was in 1937.
Therefore, since it has been possible under the existing limits to increase the amounts of existing pensions as well as to make new awards, there is not any very strong case for an immediate increase in the annual limit. The limit is being spent at the present moment, but in cases where the pensions were very low they have been gradually brought up during the last 15 years.
My hon. Friend said that in recent years the heart of charity had dried up. I am not so sure that that is a generally accepted statement as regards the whole field of charitable works in the country. But what is true is that there have grown up, with the development of National Insurance and indeed in the academic field and in the institutional world, all sorts of superannuation schemes and the like which nowadays affect quite a proportion of the persons

about whom we are talking, and possibly also their dependants. Anyhow, the fact remains that there has been a tendency for the number of applications which can show real need to decrease.
There is no special reference to this in the Report. Whether this was discussed by the Select Committee or not is not for me to say, because what happens there is naturally not reported; but the Select Committee deliberated on a great number of matters, and it is certainly true, I think, that it would be in accordance with what has been done in another field in the Select Committee's Report—I hope my colleagues on the Select Committee will agree with me when I say this—regarding the contingencies fund on the Civil List portion of this Motion to provide some method of safeguarding against further increases in cost during a long reign.
By leaving it at the figure of £2,500 since 1937 it is clear that there is no cushion there unless the effect of the State schemes to which I have referred is in itself a cushion. Therefore, the Government have taken the matter into consideration since the Select Committee reported, and we are prepared to invite the Committee to accept a manuscript Amendment if it is called—which I have reason to believe it will be—to increase the statutory limit as laid down in the Motion as printed from £2,500 a year to £5,000 and so to provide what I think ought to be an adequate margin for future contingencies, taking the whole picture into view.
But it would not be the intention of the Government—in this case it is, of course, the Prime Minister's recommendation—because the figure has gone up from £2,500 to £5,000 to increase at once the annual amount of new pensions to that particular limit. The time to do that is when the need becomes apparent. After all, the grant of these pensions is a recognition, however small it may be in some cases, of accepted eminence in science, literature or the arts, and I think and hope that Parliament will consider that the standard of attainments and qualifications should be maintained, as otherwise, of course, the value of it—not the financial value but the honorific value—would diminish as the years go by.
Therefore, by raising the maximum there is no intention of spending £5,000 straight away just because there is £5,000 to spend. The attainments and qualifications and standards should be maintained and have been maintained as my hon. Friend pointed out—he read out some of the names—and in that way, I think, we are meeting the very proper case which the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend put forward.
The Government have not had the opportunity of consulting every member of the Select Committee on this subject since the decision was made, but judging from the relationships which were formed through that Committee and the happy way in which we worked, I have reason to think—

ROYAL ASSENT

6.0 p.m.

Whereupon, The GENTLEMAN USHER OF THE BLACK ROD being come with a Message, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Finance Act, 1952.
2. Post Office and Telegraph (Money) Act, 1952.
3. Agriculture (Ploughing Grants) Act, 1952.
4. Post Office (Amendment) Act, 1952.
5. Pier and Harbour Order (Falmouth) Confirmation Act, 1952.
6. Manchester Ship Canal Act, 1952.
7. Winchester Corporation Act, 1952.
8. Merchant Navy Memorial Act, 1952.
9. Leamington Corporation Act, 1952.

CIVIL LIST

Again considered in Committee.

Question again proposed.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Crookshank: Perhaps I had better put a full stop to the sentence in which I was interrupted. I should first like to make the comment that it is a strange coincidence that on a day when we have had so much talk of ceremonial and circumstance, we should ourselves have been involved in our own traditional pageantry during the very debate. We should, therefore, be the last to complain of pageantry elsewhere.
I was concluding by saying, having heard the arguments of the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend, and having taken the matter further into consideration, that at the appropriate moment an Amendment will be moved by either my right hon. Friend or myself raising the maximum from £2,500 to £5,000 a year. I trust that will meet the wishes of the whole Committee.

Sir E. Keeling: Might I just thank my right hon. Friend—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Might I just say—

Hon. Members: No.

The Deputy-Chairman: We have not yet reached the Amendment.

Sir E. Keeling: No, Mr. Hopkin Morris, but I shall not be here then.

The Deputy-Chairman: Mr. Benson.

Mr. George Benson: Mr. George Benson (Chesterfield) rose—

Sir E. Keeling: On a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. Might I just—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: On a point of order. I also rose, but you called my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson), and, of course, I gave way.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am sorry. I did not see the right hon. Gentleman, and I called the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson).

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Benson: Perhaps I might thank the Lord Privy Seal on behalf of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling).


Speaking for one Member of the Select Committee, I am very pleased indeed that the Government have agreed to do something which the Select Committee itself might have done had it thought about it.
This debate must be the quietest debate on a Civil List which has ever taken place. Even my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) gave the impression of lethargy. A debate in which there is very little difference between the two sides always tends to flag. I propose to confine my remarks to a very narrow point, to speak to the Amendment in my name and the names of right hon. and hon. Friends of mine, to leave out lines 31 and 32 of the Motion.
The purpose of the Amendment is to make no provision whatsoever for the present Duke of Cornwall until he arrives at the age of 18. The Opposition have shown that they are prepared to make provision, and to make it generously, where public duties are concerned and where the costs of those public duties fall upon the Royal Family, but it is quite inconceivable that costly public duties will fall upon the Duke of Cornwall until he reaches the age of 18, and thus it seems to me that no provision should be made in the Civil List, certainly not during his childhood.
It is a normal thing that during childhood a person is maintained by his parents. That is only natural and proper. We have already made provision upon a generous scale for the parents of the Duke of Cornwall, and I see no reason why we should make double provision. This, however, embodies a principle which was raised by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) in relation to Crown Lands. He said that the revenue of Crown Lands was Royal property and was surrendered in each reign and that the same principle of ownership applied to the revenues of Lancaster and Cornwall. It is true that, constitutionally, the revenues of those three estates, Cornwall, Lancaster, and the Crown Lands, inhere either to the Crown in the case of Crown Lands and Lancaster or to the Heir to the Throne in the case of the Duchy of Cornwall.
However, I suggest that the position of these great estates and these great revenues is quite different from that of ordinary property. Constitutionally they

inhere to these individuals, the Crown or the Heir to the Throne, if a male, but really they inhere not to the individuals themselves but rather to office holders. In the case of Crown Lands that is very clearly so, because although the revenue from Crown Lands may be the property of the Sovereign it was until surrender a revenue charged with certain very grave liabilities.
It is interesting to note that Crown Lands go back as far as Edward the Confessor. Moreover, the estates comprising Crown Lands are very largely the actual estates which were held by Edward the Confessor and by successive Sovereigns ever since. They were the estates from which the monarch got the revenue for the purpose of the government of the whole country, and it was only in times of warfare or extravagance on the part of the monarch that he came to Parliament to ask it to assist him by the provision of taxes. Normally he was supposed to run the country out of the Crown Lands.
When William IV at the beginning of the last century surrendered the Crown Lands, the revenue provided the salary of Mr. Speaker and also the salaries of a large number of officials, so that it cannot be argued, as was done by the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West that these revenues are private property.

Mr. Assheton: That was not the argument which I put to the Committee. The argument I was putting was that a considerable amount of the revenue is derived from the Crown Lands, which more than offsets the amount that is being granted in the Civil List and that, therefore, no charge, in fact, falls on the taxpayer.

Mr. Benson: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I have been pointing out that the revenue of the Crown Lands was the revenue for the purpose of running the country as a whole, and what has happened is this, that the Crown has surrendered approximately £1 million a year and the country bears £4,000 million for the Crown. I think the Crown has got a good bargain.

Mr. Alport: The hon. Member is, of course, perfectly correct in his statement about the relationship of the Crown Lands and the revenue during feudal times. I doubt whether he is accurate


for the period between the middle of the 18th Century and the time when they were surrendered by the Crown. Of course, there was no intention or possibility of providing for the expenses of the State from them, and they were used primarily for the Civil List or its equivalent in those days.

Mr. Benson: As I pointed out a moment ago, in the reign of William IV, which was in the 19th Century, revenue from the Crown Lands was used to pay the salary of Mr. Speaker and the salaries of other officials as well as certain expenses. But even in the 13th Century it will be found that the revenue from the Crown Lands was inadequate, except in most favourable circumstances, to enable the Crown to pay the administrative expenses of the country.
The Crown Lands themselves were always regarded as the property of the country, because whenever the King was extravagant or whenever, through a favourite, he alienated the Crown Lands, as in the case of Edward II, to such an extent that it interfered with the revenues of the country, the nobles immediately rose, beheaded the favourite and returned the Crown Lands to the common stock. They established by drastic precedent that the Crown Lands were public and not private property.
I must now turn to the Duchy of Cornwall with which our Amendment specifically deals. It may be true constitutionally in theory that the revenues belong to the Duke, but actually, when one looks at the line of inheritance from the time of the original settlement, one finds it so broken by murder and civil war that it has little normal descent. It was Parliament that decided the inheritance by deciding who should ascend the Throne.
In the last two reigns the public nature of the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall has, I think, been clearly demonstrated. There was no Duke of Cornwall in the last reign, and in those circumstances constitutionally the revenues would go to the Crown. Actually, they were put to the fortification of the revenues of the country and the cost of the Civil List was reduced by the revenues from the Duchy of Cornwall, subject to certain prior charges. Here again, during the minority of the present Duke very con-

siderable sums are paid to the fortification of the revenue.
The principle has been established clearly and beyond the peradventure of a doubt that the revenues of these three great estates, Crown Lands, Lancashire, and Cornwall are public property, and in the proposal we are merely carrying a little further the deductions from the revenues of Cornwall in order to fortify the public revenue, and we are doing it on the grounds that we think we have already provided adequately for the Royal Family and for the minority of the Duke of Cornwall. It is for those reasons that we have put down this Amendment.

6.28 p.m.

Captain Christopher Soames: I am glad to be able to follow the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson). I was interested in the argument he put forward to show that the Crown Lands in Lancashire and the Duchy of Cornwall were public property. Nevertheless, it must be remembered that it is necessary for the reigning monarch formally to hand over the revenues from these Duchies and from the Crown Lands to the State at the beginning of each new reign. The hon. Member for Chesterfield thinks he has established without any doubt that they are, in fact, public property, but if they are, why is it necessary for each reigning monarch at the beginning of his reign officially to hand over the revenues from these estates to the State?

Mr. Benson: May I give the answer to that by putting another question? Why is it that the House asks permission from the Sovereign to spend or raise money?

Captain Soames: I do not think that that has anything to do with the Duchy of Lancashire.

Mr. Benson: Certainly it has. Let me put it another way.

Captain Soames: No, because it does not interfere with my argument. The revenues from the Duchy of Lancashire and the Duchy of Cornwall and from the Crown Lands exceed the amount of the Civil List. That is a point which has not been sufficiently stressed in the country, and it has not been sufficiently stressed by the Government. It is up to them to put it clearly so that the people of this country will realise that the


Crown, in fact, hands over to the State more money every year than is voted on the Civil List, so that it does not cost the taxpayer one penny. The money in the Civil List does not come from the taxpayers' pockets The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) mentioned the fact that these estates are not subject to Death Duties. I agree that if they were those duties would go to the State, but at the moment the State gets more in revenue from these lands than, in fact, it provides in the Civil List.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) spoke with his customary candour and told us, without pulling any punches, that he was a republican. How many hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite share his views I do not know, but many of them, and certainly the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker,) are guilty of wanting to have the best of both worlds. I would draw a comparison. Many hon. Members pay lip-service to collective security. They are in favour of speeches being made at the United Nations organisation in favour of it, but when it comes to fighting to back up collective security they do not like it. Many of them pay lip-service to the monarchy because they feel that it would be unpopular not to do so, but when it comes to paying for the monarchy they find all sorts of reasons and quibbles against it.
I am convinced that their sentiments do not express the feelings of the overwhelming majority of the people of this country, who like the monarchy, with its pomp and ceremony. They like the pomp and ceremony. They need it, it is part of their lives. They would not have it done away with for anything in the world—and it does not cost the taxpayer one single penny.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Cahir Healy: Unlike the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), my colleague from Mid-Ulster and I both represent a constituency which has given us a republican mandate. Probably we are the only two people who have been elected on the republican issue, and therefore I have a special right to answer the challenge of the hon. and gallant Member for Bedford (Captain Soames).
Every time this subject is discussed in the House an assurance is given that there

is no extravagance and that the opportunities for extravagance have been cut to the bone. Nevertheless, the amounts remain very considerable, after all these years. My constituents think that the amounts in the estimate are extravagant and that the Amendments indicate far more clearly the relative value of the services of the Sovereign.
Mention has been made of the cost of the services which the Sovereign renders to the Commonwealth. I have always understood that on ceremonial occasions the cost is borne on the local exchequer. From time to time I see estimates of the Northern Ireland Government showing very large sums arising out of attendances for specific purposes of members of the Royal Family. I take it for granted that that is also the position when the Sovereign or some member of the Royal Family makes a ceremonial visit in England, Scotland or Wales.
Our view is that there is too much ceremony, that there are too many people surrounding the Sovereign and that they cost far too much. It is notable that the more primitive people are, the greater their desire for ceremonial. The very progressive and intellectual people aim rather at simplicity.
I was rather amused to notice the extent of the relationship to the monarchy which it is considered should be provided with a pension or with a large income for the discharge of public duties. I do not see why these young people should not adopt professions or go into business. There are ways of making a living which are just as honourable as the drawing of a public dole without a means test.
An hon. Gentleman on the other side spoke of the generosity of the Sovereign in regard to the Crown Lands, but some of those lands were stolen from the Church at the time of the Reformation. It is rather late in the day—but better late than never—to make restitution. Why should we pass a vote of thanks to people whose ancestors despoiled a community and who now give back that which was then stolen? These lands did not fall like manna from Heaven. There must have been some legal or military process involved. I suggest that in passing this money over to the Exchequer and making restitution, the Crown is doing nothing more than wipe out an injustice which was committed a good many years ago.
Though I am a republican, I do not want to dictate to the British people how they should govern themselves. I would appeal to the British people to extend to us in Ireland the same liberty. The majority of the people in Ireland are republican. Why should the British not withdraw their Army and allow the majority of the people to do what they want to do? I know that in the north-east corner of Ireland there are people who have different views, but they are a small minority in the nation.
This £475,000 seems a tremendous sum to people who are only in the habit of dealing with £5 or £6 per week. The curious part is that the recipient of that great sum of money is not in a position to provide for her dependants and her children. The Duke of Edinburgh gets £40,000, but his family have to be provided for. The same is true of Princess Margaret. When she marries she is to have £13,000. Her husband need not undertake the responsibility of an ordinary man upon marriage. He will not have the responsibility of providing a home.
The scale of these allowances is too great. Although they would not amount to much if spread over millions of people, yet it would be a gesture of co-operation if Her Majesty and all the members of Her Court showed some sympathy with those whose social services are being reduced, whose hospital services have been cut, and who are suffering hardship in other respects. It would appeal very much to the man-in-the-street. Not only does my colleague the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. O'Neill) hold the same view as myself, but also the people in Fermanagh and Tyrone and parts of Derry and Armagh, more than half of Northern Ireland, feel the same. We ought to look at this realistically. The kings and queens are departing from the capitals of the world and a wholly new set of circumstances has arisen. They were a very expensive adornment and apparently were not indispensable.
The average family in my constituency has a net income of £150 a year. Indeed, many of them are excused from being insured under the National Insurance Act on the ground that they have not £104. Imagine the feelings of such people when they read that some other

lady or gentleman somewhere or other has as much a minute as they have a year—they who toil in the heat and the cold, who are up at the break of day and work until dark at night. After all, we are all human beings.
I know that the majority of the people in this country are very monarchist and I am not quarrelling with them in that respect. They are entitled to be. But I object to the people who claim to be monarchical in one island claiming to dictate to the next island—[An HON. MEMBER: "No."] You do, indeed. Take your Army away and we shall soon see what will happen.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has a great opportunity here to show that he believes in what he says. Not long since I read his appeal to the workers to forgo any further demands for wage increases. I think the workers would take that plea seriously if the right hon. Gentleman could persuade them that the people at the top were setting them a good example.

6.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: When I met the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy) on the plane last Monday coming over here I thought he was up to some mischief. Perhaps it would be more Parliamentary to say that he had a well-considered Parliamentary proposition which he intended to put forward to this Committee. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a republican but I am a monarchist and so are the people who return me and the other Ulster Unionist Members here. The song I was brought up on when I was a boy was about the first Queen Elizabeth, who was at a great review—
'Up' said the Queen
And she waved her lily hand.
The South Down militia
Are the terror of the land.
Then there was another song about the time of Queen Victoria when gentlemen like the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone were seeing the Queen go by. I remember this line:
And I cheered, God forbid me, I cheered with the rest.
The Ulster Unionist Members were brought up in quite a different tradition and atmosphere from the hon. Gentleman apparently.
We respect the hon. Member's opinions and I am quite sure that he holds them as conscientiously as I do mine. He said that it was the most primitive people who liked ceremony. I must come from the neolithic age, because I like pageantry. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the Army, the Navy and the Air Force and its ceremony. I like all that. I like to see the Army marching about.
The hon. Gentleman said, "Take the British Army away and see what will happen." Well, we need not go back into the past. We all know what happened at the time of Carson and the Ulster Division. I think we can forget the time we call "The Troubles" and think about 1952. There are a lot of things in the history of Ireland that could well be forgotten. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Black and Tans, also."]
The hon. Gentleman said that the King took the land away from the churches. Who gave the land to the churches originally? According to my history book the King gave it to them. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that next Saturday all over the Six Counties of Northern Ireland and many other places in the English-speaking world there will be meetings of thousands or hundreds of thousands of men and women, all meeting to declare their allegiance to the Queen, and also to pass a resolution in detestation of Communism. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman comes with me to Bangor to see the people there. I do not know whether or not he would come on to the platform with me.
It is only a Sunday or two ago that we had the Princess Royal in my constituency. I try to be hard boiled. I try to prevent things affecting me too much. But when I saw that parade of boys and girls and Red Cross nurses before the Princess Royal, it brought a lump to my throat. It always does. It may not affect other hon. Gentlemen on both sides of this Committee. No one is trying to turn them out of the British Empire, but we in Northern Ireland have our enemies who are all the time trying to turn us from allegiance to the Royal Family and to prevent us from living under the Union Jack. It affects us in quite a different way from any other hon. Gentleman or hon. Lady in this Committee.

Mr. Healy: The hon. and gallant Gentleman uses the Union Jack for

political purposes. I see it at the bottom of every 12th July Bill.

Sir W. Smiles: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that when I and my friends and brothers join the British Army and serve the King under the Union Jack, we look upon it as an honour and are not thinking about political matters at all. So far as we in Northern Ireland are concerned, we are glad to pay our share of the emoluments that will be given to the Royal Family and we wish the Queen a long life and happiness.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. James Carmichael: I hope the Committee will not expect me to enter into a controversy with the people of Northern Ireland, because I think I should come off second best.
My concern tonight is to justify some of the Amendments tabled in the names of my hon. Friends and myself. We are of the opinion that there is undue extravagance in the figures in this Motion. When I look back over a number of past debates on the Civil List I am fortified by the fact that, while I do not stick rigidly to tradition, some of the speeches made in earlier debates justify the attitude I adopt this afternoon.
I shall not argue that I am a republican. An old friend of mine who was an eminent Member of this House, John Wheatley, once said he would never raise one finger to destroy a capitalist monarchy in order to replace it by a capitalistic republic. I accept that. As a matter of fact, reading the speeches of 1937, I gather the leader of the then Opposition accepted that dictum in his approach to this problem when dealing with the Civil List.
I do not accept the idea that we can abolish pageantry, but I think that it is exaggerated. Even the Leader of the Opposition in 1937 argued against its extension. We must not exaggerate it, because the most popular member of the Royal Family at one time abdicated and slipped out in the middle of the night. He was the most popular member of the Royal Family when he was Prince of Wales, and be was made popular because of the attitude of the Press during the period of pageantry. But in less than 48 hours, notwithstanding all the nice things that were said in earlier years


about him, he was regarded as quite incompetent to be associated with the decent men and women of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is grossly inaccurate."] What I am saying is perfectly true.
I do not want to elaborate it. I am simply giving an instance of the undue worship of individuals. I have no ill will or personal animosity against any member of the Royal Family. I think the members of the Royal Family, in their ordinary dealings with human beings, will be as decent and kindly as other people and will have all the virtues and vices of ordinary men and women.
In the last 10 years, however, there has been an extension of the pageantry and bunting, and already the trimmings are being prepared for the Coronation as if it were one of the most important things ever to have taken place in this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am not surprised that hon. Members on the other side of the Committee cheer. If I had had to be directed in my philosophy in life by the attitude of mind of people on the other side, there would not be a Member on this side to make any protest today against the amount of money that is to be spent. Every move that was made by this side through the generations was made under protest from the other side. I remember the speech Keir Hardie made when the Duke of Windsor was born. I remember the abuse he got. Had we succumbed to that, there would have been no Members of any kind on this side.
Let me deal with the pageantry aspect. Our first Amendment—in line 4, leave out "£475,000," and insert "£250,000"—would reduce the Civil List to £250,000. I may be asked how we arrive at that figure. I am not an accountant or an arithmetical expert, but I am entitled to argue I have a stronger case for putting forward that figure than some of the other figures added for some of the other members of the Royal Family.
Why is it that when the Select Committee have already agreed that certain members of the Household can have their expenses charged against the Ministry of Works, we cannot have a quite clear distinction between the Royal Family and their other responsibilities? Every time

we try to get the actual figure associated with the Royal Family, we are told that it accounts for all the servants and all the paraphernalia which is associated with the Royal Household.
It is the House of Commons which makes the laws, and surely we are entitled to get a clear distinction as to the salaries required by the Queen and the other members of the Royal Family without adding all the trimmings. But we never get that. Therefore, surely it is time for a complete inquiry into the entire ramifications of the Royal Family and the various costs. We do not get this even in the Report, which gives only a certain amount of information. It is true that the members of the Select Committee had all kinds of papers laid before them. It would be most interesting to know whether they could state quite clearly that they are competent now to examine the entire ramifications of the finances of the Royal Household in detail. I do not think they could do it.
To save time later, I will deal with some of the other Amendments. There is one in line 12, to leave out "£40,000," and to insert "£10,000." It has been suggested that £40,000 should be the income of the Duke of Edinburgh. How was that figure arrived at? I regard the Prime Minister—this, also, was argued by the Leader of the Opposition in 1937—as the most responsible man in our public life. [HON. MEMBERS: "Irresponsible."] I am not talking personally. I am bound to concede that the Prime Minister has a long and distinguished record of public service. If it is necessary that the Duke of Edinburgh should have a salary, it should not be any higher than the £10,000 for the Prime Minister.
Having made that suggestion, the Select Committee have gone to the ridiculous length of providing for the family. I remember the fights we have had in the House about family allowances. It may be said that I am making an extravagant exaggeration of the position, but we are dealing with human beings, and while I do not accept the idea that all these responsibilities can be merged into one, I think there should be some thought of getting rid of the class State which is being perpetuated today. Again, I have in mind what the Leader of the Opposition said in 1937.
Princess Margaret has an income at present of £6,000. If she gets married,


we are to add another £9,000. How is that figure arrived at? Who is she likely to marry? Surely, that is a very pertinent question. If any hon. or right hon. Member had a daughter who was getting married, one of the first questions he would ask is, "Who is the person you are going to marry? What are his financial resources?" I am not suggesting that the time may not arrive when, if Princess Margaret is doing public duties, her income may not require to be increased. But we are a little premature in deciding to give an increase of £9,000 when she is married when we have no idea whether she will ever be married. I know, of course, that she is eligible.
To go to the other extreme, the Duke of Cornwall is to have a scale slightly above the family allowances. But then, he is only three years of age. No doubt, he is a very nice, healthy child, whose mother will be delighted, as are all mothers of children of that age, to see him grow up. When he gets to a certain age, there is to be a very big increase in his annual income. Although he is only three years of age, the Committee have also decided that, in the event of his marrying and then dying and leaving a widow, we have to set aside an income for his widow. If he is still the Duke of Cornwall, it will be £30,000. Surely that is carrying the authority of the House of Commons of 1952 a bit too far.
In all probability, with the best will in the world we can argue that it will take at least another 20 years before the young man thinks of marriage. In the event of his dying around the age of 50—which I should not like to happen—this means that we in this House of Commons in 1952 are determining the pension for the year 2000. If that is not abusing the democratic rights of the future, I do not know what it is.
We are protesting against this; we are protesting against the amount of ritual which is going on. It should be reduced. If ever the common people of the area I represent get near to Buckingham Palace, it will be to look through the gates. We want a lot of this expenditure reduced and it could be done. We have a very nice palace in Edinburgh, Holyrood Palace. One of the great problems in Edinburgh, as is common in many big cities, is lack of housing. That palace is empty for the greater part of the year,

but it would make a nice place for the decanting people from the slums. I know this suggestion will be regarded as an outrage in certain quarters, but every forward move in the democratic principles has been challenged by the people who have had privilege. I say, therefore, that it is not unsound to use a palace which is empty during the greater part of the year to house the people so that building construction can take place in the evacuated areas.
Yes, the time has arrived when there should be some curtailment of all this ritual and a re-examination of the income which it is proposed to give to the Duke of Edinburgh. There should be some re-examination of the stupid recommendation in regard to the Duke of Cornwall. I hope that tonight we shall have an opportunity of recording our opposition to it. But for the fact that it would be regarded as an act of plagiarism, I could have made the speech which the Leader of the Opposition made in 1937 and would need to add nothing to what he said then. I am convinced the Leader of the Opposition in 1952 will not object to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in 1937.

7.4 p.m.

Captain J. A. L. Duncan: The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) has introduced a rather jarring note into this debate. At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) said how quiet this debate was in comparison with debates in previous Parliaments. The hon. Member for Bridgeton asked various questions in discussing the Amendments and I hope that he will do me the honour of listening because I want to try to answer some of the points he raised.
The hon. Member wants to reduce the total of £475,000 to £250,000. I would like to know in greater detail how he proposes to reduce it. He said that none of us who sat on the Select Committee could put our hands on our hearts and say that we knew all the ins and outs of the finance of this business. I am not prepared to say that I know everything about it, but in the course of a number of meetings I think we all found out a great deal and we were given all the information for which he asked. I think, for instance, that the statement on pages 14 and 15 of


the Select Committee's Report gives a fairly clear picture of the ramifications of the expenses involved in the court.
The hon. Member referred to the Duke of Edinburgh's £40,000 and asked how we arrived at that figure. The answer is simply that it is the same sum as was allotted to the Consort in the last reign.

Mr. Carmichael: Surely the hon. and gallant Member has a better explanation for giving a sum of money in 1952 than that it is the same as was given to the Consort in 1900.

Captain Duncan: No, in 1937—the Consort in the last reign. I think it is the same figure and, having regard to the difference in the cost of living, it shows in fact that there has been a reduction.
The hon. Member referred to the classless State at which he and some of his hon. Friends were aiming. Here, I must disagree with him. I believe that, inevitably in this country, there will always be classes. What we on this side of the Committee wish to aim at is equality of opportunity for all classes. We are not in favour of a classless State because we do not believe that over any period of history it would last having regard to the virility and enterprise of our people. What we want to see in our philosophy is the greatest opportunity for everyone, wherever he is born, to make the best of his own ability.
The hon. Member referred to Princess Margaret and suggested that she should not get £15,000 on marriage. I think he has already been answered by the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), who approved the recommendation of the Select Committee, basing her approval on the argument that it would give freedom of choice of a husband. That is what the hon. Lady said, not what I say.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The hon. and gallant Member said that it answered the point.

Captain Duncan: I think it does; she has gained freedom of choice.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton asked, "Who is she to marry?"; and what the finances of the husband would be. He made play with that sort of thing. This proposal will relieve the Princess of those embarrassing inquiries. She will be able

to have a certain freedom of choice. I should like to point this out to the hon. Member, because I think he has in mind that she is bound to, marry a rich man. When she marries she has to set up her own establishment. She cannot live with her sister, the Queen—

Mr. Carmichael: Is that unique?

Captain Duncan: —she will have to leave Buckingham Palace. If she got no more than she is getting now and married a rich man I think these figures are rather interesting as showing what rich men get in these days. I am taking fairly extreme cases. If hon. Members look at the tax tables, submitted at the time of the Budget in the Financial Statement for 1952, they will find that a man whose total income from investments is £15,000 gross—I am taking that as the type of person she is likely to marry—by the time the tax collector has been busy the husband will pay taxes and the net amount left will be £3,500. If he has an invested income of £30,000, after the tax collector has finished with him his total income is £3,900. So that we can say that the difference of £15,000 in gross income is a net increase in income of only £400 and in fact he is still getting less than £4,000 a year.
As we say in the Report, in these days it is impossible for Princess Margaret to marry a man sufficiently rich that after taxes have been paid it would leave her sufficient to live on. I suggest, therefore, that the point of view of the hon. Member for Flint, East, and the facts I have given, justify that under present conditions this £15,000 should be given to Her Royal Highness when she marries.
Regarding the Duke of Cornwall, the hon. Member for Chesterfield tried to suggest that the money from the Duchy of Cornwall was Government money. But the argument breaks down, because everyone is agreed that at the age of 21 the Duke comes into the whole of the money whatever it may be; and the idea that it is Government money until he is 21 and private money afterwards does not seem to support the argument of the hon. Member for Chesterfield.
The hon. Member for Bridgeton talked about the £30,000 for the Duke's widow. At present, that is a very unlikely happening and I hope that that money will never be used. I hope that the


circumstances will never arise to make that payment necessary, especially 50 years ahead. But the whole basis of this Report is that the recommendations are based on a long view. I do not want to go into that part of the argument again, because it has been advanced already. We have to look forward to various possibilities, and I think that the Committee was right to consider the unlikely possibiliy of there being a widow of the Duke of Cornwall.
Some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that this is extravagance, but I would call attention to part of paragraph 12 of the Report, bearing in mind the enormous increase in the cost of everything today. We see that the Civil List of King Edward VII, and the Civil List of King George V at the beginning of the last reign were £470,000. We are advocating only £475,000. I admit there has been some change by passing some of the Civil List expenditure to other Votes, the details of which are given lower down in the paragraph. But when we bear in mind the enormous increase in costs, surely it is a reasonable sum to give to Her Majesty in order to support what the majority of the people of this country believe is worth while.
Before I represented South Angus I was the Member for Kensington, North. There was not much difference from the point of view of population between that constituency and the constituencies represented by the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton. It had the highest slum population when I went there in 1931. I say this because I have sympathy with the point of view of those people and I believe that I understand what those people think. My impression is entirely different from that of hon. Members opposite.
I remember leaving this Palace of Westminster almost immediately after the last Coronation. I was in North Kensington at about 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and I think I visited half a dozen Coronation tea parties. There was real loyalty among them. It was not just as an excuse for a party that the streets were all decorated. It was a real fundamental loyalty that I found among the people of the slum districts on that occasion. I believe that, on the whole, the poor people of this country are more loyal to the Crown than many other people.
I believe that the hon. Member for Bridgeton in putting forward his ideas today is misinterpreting the real, fundamental feeling of his own constituents I hope that he will change his mind about pressing these Amendments. I do not believe they represent the views of his constituents, and certainly they do not represent the views of the people of Scotland.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Robert Richards: I am not competent to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) in the point of view which he has annunciated. I would like with some diffidence to recall the Committee to the fact that what we are discussing after all is not merely these figures. We are really discussing the life of a human family, a family which has great responsibilities. We are particularly anxious that in return for the great responsibilities which they have shouldered the Committee should deal in a generous way with the Royal Family.
The essence of the whole position lies in the conditions under which the Royal Family is asked to exist. After all, that is the strong point of the monarchy, in my opinion. It is not the fact that they live in a Palace, or anything of that kind. They owe very little to all the trappings which are occasionally associated with them. But they do owe everything to the kind of life they are able to lead, and I think our first duty is to secure for all of them the opportunity of leading a full and a rich life.
I can well understand that the man in the street does not understand these figures in the least. I do not think anybady really appreciates them, except some of the minions at the Treasury. They are accustomed to deal with and speak in millions, and, consequently, they find no great difficulty about appreciating what is meant by an income of £475,000. But to the man in the street, or the woman in the home, it is an absolutely fabulous sum. I am particularly sorry that the man in the street or the woman in the home will never read the document which we have had prepared for us.
I think the Select Committee has made a very good job indeed of elucidating some of the more difficult problems


which are connected with it. But the one thing that the man in the street and the woman in the home will remember is the grand total at the end of it all. I am afraid that this will have a great psychological effect. People will argue in all kinds of ways. They will forget the details. They will not really understand them. They will not have the opportunity of studying them. The only thing which will remain in the minds of most people is the grand total which we are asked to vote tonight.
There is also another difficulty under which the Royal Family have to live. I never quite understand why we should expect them to live in a white elephant of a place like Buckingham Palace. I think that it is a great injustice. An examination of the figures shows that a great deal of the £450,000 is spent upon Buckingham Palace in keeping it in order, and so on.
I should like to make a simple suggestion. It is that this Palace, just like the Palace we are now in, should be transferred completely to the Lord Great Chamberlain. It should be his concern to see that the Palace is kept in order for ceremonial purposes, as I believe that it is his duty now to a certain extent. The Royal Family should live somewhere else, perhaps at Clarence House, or a more appropriate place if possible, and they should visit Buckingham Palace only on State occasion. They should not be burdened, as they are now, with the cost of keeping that place.
This is a straight-forward suggestion. I do not know whether it carries any weight. I have not consulted anybody. I am merely saying that Buckingham Palace, along with the Palace of Westminster, should be the sole concern of the Lord Great Chamberlain. The Minister of Works, who I am glad to see in his place, should be answerable to the House of Commons for the upkeep of that building, and its cost.
I make that suggestion with a view to simplification. There is a lot of feeling on this side of the Committee that greater simplification of the life of Royalty is necessary. We see from the examples of other countries that the one result of the simplication of the life of Royalty is to bring them into closer contact with the people of the country which they govern.

If the Royal Family were able to throw over this octopus, this incubus under which they are living at present, they could live their own little lives in seclusion in a chosen spot in London. They could—and all of us could—as the occasion arose, make use of Buckingham Palace as a centre for State occasions. The Palace should not be left entirely as a burden for the Royal Family to share.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. E. H. C. Leather: I confess frankly that I feel myself at a real disadvantage. I hope that I am not committing a breach of Privilege, but I must say that I have found a lot of the discussion we have had not only distasteful but embarrassing. I use those words advisedly.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) apparently wanted to know every time the Queen had a bathroom painted, why it was painted and how much it cost. To take a ridiculous analogy, if my employer wanted to know that about me I should use rather rude language in reply.

Mr. William Keenan: He does not paint the hon. Gentleman's bathroom for him.

Mr. Leather: The fact is that he pays my salary. I would say that hon. Members opposite are very fortunate that Royalty do not manage to get themselves organised into a trade union. No trade union would put up for one minute with the interference into the private lives of its members which many hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to want. I say that such talk is embarrassing and distasteful and ungrateful.

Mr. George Craddock: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense.

Mr. Leather: The hon. Gentleman may think so. My disadvantage may be that I come from another part of the Commonwealth. We do not look, either there or in my constituency in Somerset, at the Royal Family as a public institution, in the same way that some Gentlemen opposite seem to do.
I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan). I do not find the reaction among the coal miners in my constituency to be bitter, envious and


jealous, or that they question every penny, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) would have us believe. That is a new experience to me.
I once fought a constituency in Bristol which was made up largely of dock workers. I still go there and I know many of them well. I do not remember any of them ever making the kind of criticisms which so many hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to make. I fully support my hon. and gallant Friend. I do not think that these views are representative of the people.
There are two points I wish to make. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) used a phrase which was very dramatic and striking. I can imagine it making wonderful headlines in certain newspapers tomorrow. I think that most of his arguments have been answered, but this one has not been directly. He said that the Chancellor was coming forward here with the greatest wage claim for years—I have forgotten whether he said that it was the greatest for years, for centuries or in history.
That point has been answered by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition who said if I understood him correctly, that if the expenditure had not been scaled down very considerably this appropriation today would not be £475,000 but over £800,000. To say that that represents a colossal wage claim is scandalously unfair to the Royal Family.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me of a bigger one?

Mr. Leather: I can tell the hon. Gentleman a bigger one by mentioning any of the various claims put forward in the last few weeks. But this is not an increase at all: this represents a substantial cut.
Many hon. Gentlemen opposite have said that we must have economy and efficiency. The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) rather suggested that the House of Commons should constitute itself into an efficiency committee to look through the Queen's account book and to see that she had not wasted 6d. here or 6d. there. I regard that as not only rather impracticable, but—[HON MEMBERS: "She did not say that."] I am

sorry that the hon. Lady is not here. She referred specifically to efficiency and economy. She used the argument in support of her plea for a review every 10 years.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: Surely the hon. Gentleman can put forward his argument without caricaturing the observations of other hon. Members. Will he answer this question? Why is it wrong to suggest that in the affairs of the Royal establishments there should be economy, but right to suggest that in every other field of national life?

Mr. Leather: I am simply pointing out that not only does the Report say that there has been every economy but that apparently members on both sides who were on the Select Committee are agreed on that point. When one compares this figure with what it would have been at today's money values, had not drastic economies been made, one can appreciate the truth of the statement that economies have been made. It is ungracious to suggest that very drastic economies can be made when, in fact, there has been virtually a cut of 50 per cent. already.
I listened with great interest and entire agreement to the speech of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine). He referred particularly to the position of the Queen as the head of the Commonwealth. Speaking as one who comes from the Commonwealth, I would say that that means a lot to those millions of people who live outside this particular realm of Her Majesty. This expenditure, in my view, is not only reasonable and right, but surely we cannot be too generous in making it possible for Her Majesty and the members of the Royal Family to travel in the various parts of their realm.
Great opportunities were lost before the war because the members of the Royal Family who were then available did not travel as fully as might have been desired throughout the Commonwealth. I do not know whether the contingencies in this Civil List provide for trips and visits of the members of the Royal Family to the Commonwealth, but I hope that that is a point which the Government will keep in mind and that when visits are projected they will make the most generous provision, because the presence of members of the Royal Family in the Commonwealth has a tremendous significance and great importance.
That may not be very materialistic— it may not even be "realistic"—but the Royal Family touches the hearts of ordinary people, be they rich or poor. This appropriation is, I believe, no more than barely adequate for the incomparable service they render to the Commonwealth.

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Victor Yates: The hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) has displayed complete ignorance of the main line of inspiration which has prompted hon. Members on this side of the House in their criticism of huge expenditure of this kind.

Mr. Leather: To be perfectly frank, I do not understand it.

Mr. Yates: I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), and I do not think that in one sentence did he refer to hatred and bitterness. Surely one can examine a question of this kind objectively without that kind of accusation. When the hon. Member for Somerset, North said that he was very sorry that the Royal Family had not a trade union to which to turn I would say this to him: if the members of every trade union in this land could be assured of such generous treatment, there would be no need for any trade unions.

Mr. Leather: I am not conscious of having used the words "hatred" or "bitterness," and I have asked three of my hon. Friends whether I did so. I may have said that I found no bitterness. I did not say that I was sorry that the Royal Family had not a trade union. I suggested what might happen if they had, but I am not sorry about it in the least.

Mr. Yates: I distinctly heard the words "hatred and bitterness," as though hon. Members on this side were inspired by evil motives.
What surprises me in a debate of this kind is when, for instance, the right hon. Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton), a financial expert, objects to the House examining expenditure in connection with the Royal Family as we would examine expenditure in connection with every other Department of State. I have sat on the House of Commons

Select Committee on Expenditure for the last four or five years and I have never known an occasion when we examined expenditure in detail and were not able to find some examples of the need for economy and for the application of new ideas.
The object of this Select Committee was to examine £500,000 worth of expenditure, and less than 10 days were devoted to a matter of such vital importance. I am associated with my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in moving drastically to reduce this expenditure, and I am not doing so on the ground that the Monarchy is wrong or that a republic is right. I believe that we are expected in these times to examine very carefully expenditure of this nature, and I think that many thousands of pounds can be saved by reducing some of the conventions that require so much money.
I was very interested to read the report of the debate on the last Civil List, particularly the contribution of my right hon. Friend the leader of the Opposition. I should like to quote one or two of his statements, because they fit in with my attitude today. My right hon. Friend said on 24th May, 1937:
I do not think it is right that he"—
that is, the King—
and his family should be always, so to speak, in the public eye. Of late years I think there has been far too much boosting of Royalty in the Press and on the wireless. I do not think it is fair to the Monarchy, and I am sure it is unhealthy for the community.
I do not think there has been any diminution of that kind of the publicity. One only has to look back to the funeral of the late King; I think the tendency is rather to exaggerate rather than diminish this form of convention which requires the expenditure of a great deal of money.
My right hon. Friend also referred on that occasion to what he called
… the vulgar snobbery of a large section of the Press, perpetually holding up the King and the Royal Family and giving the utmost vulgar kind of publicity that they would give if they were selling some of their own goods."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May, 1937; Vol. 324, cc. 42 and 43.]
The time has come when we should reduce considerably the expenditure which adds to the display and pageantry—I am not against pageantry; a certain amount of it is quite good—and which


will establish a considerable gulf between the Monarch and the people.
On the last occasion when this matter was discussed my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did not suggest a large reduction such as proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire. My right hon. Friend said that the Civil List was opposed as a whole and in its details. I do not oppose it as a whole, but I am certain that the masses of the people in this country from time to time question individual items of expenditure.
I would say to the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), who said that hon. Members opposite wanted equality of opportunity, that I think that many people in my constituency—especially those who have brought up their families in the 6,000 unhealthy back-to-back houses—will ask whether or not the arrangements which we are now making will render it possible for the average child of the working man to have equality of opportunity with Prince Charles or Princess Anne.
When we were considering it before the war, we were inspired by the idea of a classless State, but one hon. Member opposite has said, "You do not believe in a classless State." Let hon. Members opposite remember that there is a very great danger, in permitting expenditure in this direction, to cause people to have a false conception of what is right and true. There are people in this country who hold fast to the Christian ideal, people who believe that it is possible to achieve a system of God upon earth. I think there is some force in that argument, and I have always thought so, but I do not see how we can move towards such a conception of world citizenship if, in fact, we permit this kind of distinction.
I think that all the trimmings, all the paraphernalia that surrounds the Throne—the glitter which I would say is not gold—should be reduced, so that the people could feel that the Monarch and his family were placed in a position closer to the ordinary people of the land. I think it could be done, and I think that one of my hon. Friends made a very good suggestion earlier about the use of Buckingham Palace.
It is an extraordinary thing that so important a matter as this occupied only nine meetings of the Select Committee,

and, as one who has had the opportunity over the last four or five years of examining Estimates in detail, I cannot think how it is possible for a Committee in that short time to have a complete understanding of the whole of the ramifications which these expenses involve. Therefore, I associate myself with the attempt drastically to reduce this expenditure, because I think it is wrong at the present time, when we have asked the people of the country to bear so many burdens, that we should make it so obvious that we have this great distinction in our country.
It may be true that the majority of the people find the monarchy very popular. I think that is true, but I cannot understand why hon. Members opposite should object to the matter being brought forward more frequently before this House of Commons. I should have thought they would have agreed that we might discuss the matter more often. I should have thought that they would not have objected to the matter being raised time and again in this House. I think it was Keir Hardie, who, in the debate on the Civil List in 1910, made this statement:
… and if the Crown be so popular, surely the more frequently the nation and the House of Commons have opportunities for showing that popularity the better for all concerned."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd July, 1910; Vol. 19, c. 1675.]
I should have thought that this would have been a good opportunity.

Mr. Colegate: Weekly debates? Monthly debates?

Mr. Yates: I would not suggest either a weekly or a monthly debate, but I should have thought that there was no cause whatever for saying that we will not permit any discussion except at the end of the reign, which may be very many years ahead, or for resisting the most reasonable Amendment which my hon. and right hon. Friends have put down for an examination every 10 years.
I would conclude by reminding the Committee of a statement which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) made in a previous debate on the Civil List, because it sums up what I feel today. My right hon. Friend said:
In my view it is an offence to the Monarchy, an offence to the idea of kingship, to assume that its dignity can only be maintained by excessive expenditure, excessive


splendour and excessive display. … Excessive display, elaborate ceremonial, dressing up on occasions, are barriers to that free play of opinion between the Crown and the cottage, between the palace and the homes of the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th May, 1937; Vol. 324, c. 458–9.]
It is on these grounds, in particular, that I oppose this Motion. On a number of occasions in my own constituency I have had questions put to me as to whether it was right and just for the child of Royalty to be treated in so vastly superior a way to anything that was meted out to the child of ordinary people. I protest at the lack of consideration for this matter. [Laughter.] The hon. Member may laugh, but, if he comes from Birmingham, he will know that there will be many questions asked about this.
It is not a question whether we have Royalty or not, but a question whether we really believe in equal rights of the people when we are removing from the control of the House of Commons the oversight of expenditure of this kind and preventing this matter coming within the purview of the House of Commons in the same way as the expenditure of every other Government Department — the Prime Minister and everybody else—has to do.
I protest that we are perpetuating a class of people who are removed from the masses. It is wrong in principle, but, in time, there will be a change, and I hope and believe that this debate will help to forward public opinion in that connection.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell (Bucks, South): The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates) referred to the debate on the Civil List in 1937, and, in substance but not in fact, he reminded me of a speech made by Lord Brougham in opposing the Civil List in 1837, when he advanced precisely the same reasons as the hon. Gentleman has put before the Committee today; namely, that the Bill which was put forward had had inadequate consideration, and that Parliament was not retaining full and detailed control of expenditure by the Royal establishment. Those arguments did not commend themselves to the House in those days, and I do not think they will commend themselves to the Committee now.
It is indeed desirable that the House of Commons should retain a general control of the amount of expenditure upon the monarchy, but I think it would be quite unsuitable that either this House or a Select Committee of the House should attempt to lay down in any detail the lines which it thought that expenditure should take. Why, after all, do we vote these sums to the Crown? Do we not assume that there is a reasonable Royal discretion as to the way in which the money should be expended? Is this House really the best judge of the precise manner of spending and the precise estimation of how much of the total sum should be devoted to each particular purpose? Why should the House of Commons be the most suitable or even the best judge of matters of detail of that kind?
Might it not appropriately be remembered that the sum which we are proposing to vote—the total sum—for the Civil List, as a charge upon the Consolidated Fund, is substantially less than half the amount of the surrendered hereditary revenues which are, of course, surrendered upon the condition that this House of Commons makes other provision for the sustenance of the Royal honour and dignity?
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman's approach to this whole matter is misconceived, and that he in no way interprets the general attitude of the country towards it. He based himself primarily, I think, upon the general argument that there should be equality, and that poor people should not have before them the spectacle of an elevated style of living surrounding the monarchy. There again I venture to differ from him on fundamental principle. If he considers the significance of his argument he will realise that it would follow from it that we should never build cathedrals until we had raised the standard of all cottages; that in no department of human activity would we spend money upon what might be called luxuries until we had raised the level of necessities.
That is a doctrine which would have deprived the human race of its greatest works of art, of the highest expression in solid form of the human spirit, until some mythical last generation came ino being; because the understanding of what is necessary, and what is a reasonable standard of life, is a constantly shifting


conception which goes up with each generation. That doctrine is one which has never been accepted by the human race in any society at any time. Always we have been willing to put aside a certain amount of money for expenditure upon matters which might be considered luxuries, even though we realised that side by side with them there existed in the world want and poverty.
I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, who supports certain Amendments which have been put down, that he would be performing a disservice, both to his constituents, to the country and to the causes for which he so sincerely stands, if he suggested that the splendour and dignity of the monarchy should be reduced in order to gratify what he believes, wrongly I am sure, to be the feelings upon this matter of the poorer sections of the community.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. S. P. Viant: As a Member of the Select Committee which bears some responsibility for the Civil List I should have been exceedingly sorry had I not been given the opportunity of speaking in this debate. I should have probably felt that I had been cowardly, more especially in view of the criticisms which have been levelled at our proposals, had I not been prepared to stand up in this Committee and express at least my own point of view.
Since I have been a Member of this House this is the third occasion upon which a Civil List has been introduced, and on every occasion keen controversy has been aroused. I want to direct the attention of the Committee to what might be called our terms of reference. We were requested to prepare a Civil List, and to prepare a report for the House of Commons, making proposals whereby the Royal Household might be maintained.
I start with this fact in my mind, that the monarchy as an institution is accepted by this country. There is no gainsaying that. Indeed, I think that the monarchy is more firmly entrenched in the minds of the people today than it has been at any time during my lifetime. I think that was contributed to very largely by the manner in which the late King was able to enter into the homes of the people as a result of his broadcasts.
The monarchy being an accepted institution, as it is today, the Select

Committee was entrusted with the responsibility of preparing ways and means for its continuation. I say quite candidly to my hon. Friends who have been critical, that in the time at our disposal we made all the investigation we possibly could. We had before us the authorities responsible for expenditure, we questioned them, and they went back and brought further information. The Chancellor of the Exchequer provided us, through his agency, with innumerable facts and information in order to assist us.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Did the Committee have power to call witnesses?

Mr. Viant: The Committee were in a position to, and did, call all the witnesses they desired.

Mr. Hughes: Did they have the power?

Mr. Viant: Power? Certainly we had the power, and we had the witnesses before us. If the hon. Gentleman reads our Report he will see the names of the witnesses we had before us. We questioned them as much as we desired to question them. I will not say that had we had further time we would not have been able to proceed very much further than we did, but at least we were satisfied that considerable economies had already been effected by the late King. He called in expert advisers on the Palace, acted upon their advice, and economies were effected as a result. Therefore, I, personally, make no apology for the work of that Select Committee.
We were not charged in our terms of reference with the responsibility of eliminating any form of ceremony. I am prepared to agree with many of my colleagues that a great deal of this ostentatious display could be dispensed with. But that was not our business. If that kind of thing is to be disposed of, we should have a special committee for the purpose to make recommendations about what kind of ceremonies should be retained and what kind should be dispensed with. We were charged with the responsibility of making a report on how to maintain the monarchy as an accepted institution, and nothing further. If anything further is to be done in that regard there will have to be a special committee for the purpose.
Speaking candidly for myself, I agree with much that has been said about the desire for simplicity, and if any words of mine carry any weight I would make an appeal here and now to the Royal Household that, in view of the manner in which they are regarded by our people, the respect that is shown to them would gain in weight and influence by the Household itself adopting a measure of greater simplicity. Further than that we cannot and could not go because it was not within our terms of reference.
It is true that the sum proposed may appear to be an enormous sum to the average man in the street, but if it is to be reduced it will not be by the methods suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). He has simply thought of a sum and put it down in his Amendment. He has charged us with not bringing forward a figure of precision. If he brings that charge against us as a Select Committee he is equally imprecise. If he seeks to back his figure he must produce the evidence to show that the present institution can be maintained on that sum of money.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: When I put forward a figure of £250,000 I am suggesting a ceiling of expenditure. There is a precedent for that in other expenditure for which we fix a ceiling. If I were appointed to a committee I should certainly be able to make constructive suggestions as to how a family could exist on £250,000.

Mr. Viant: It is rather a pity that we did not have my hon. Friend on the Committee. We realise now what we missed. It was one of his suggestions that his hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen) should be appointed to the Select Committee, and I can assure him that she did her best. I regret that you did not accept that responsibility. We should have given you a welcome there.

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hopkin Morris): I have no responsibility.

Mr. Viant: I beg your pardon, Mr. Hopkin Morris.
None the less it is no use the hon. Member for South Ayrshire putting down a figure unless he is prepared to show why that should be the figure and to show

that it is at least a figure adequate to maintain the institution as we know it at present. If it is sought to go further it can only be done by setting up a Select Committee for the purpose of devising ways and means of cutting out a good deal of ceremonial.
There is on the Order Paper an Amendment, to which I have put my name, for the purpose of postponing the occasion when an amount shall be fixed in the event of a daughter or daughters of the Queen getting married. I and many of my hon. Friends on the Select Committee considered—and we moved an Amendment to that effect in that Committee—that that should be a matter for Parliament in the future and that we should not decide it now. To say that a salary of £6,000 should be increased to £15,000 on marriage without knowing the circumstances at that time is entirely wrong.
The same applies to many of the other proposals. We did our best on the Select Committee to put our point of view, but, unfortunately, we were in the minority in many instances. But our Amendments are on the Order Paper and I hope that those of my hon. Friends who have been so critical of the proposals now before this Committee will be able to support us in the Lobby when our Amendments are moved later.
I am pleased to have had the opportunity of stating my point of view as a member of the Select Committee. I have emphasised the restricted terms of reference on which we had to work; and I have indicated what might be done in the future if it is desired to cut out a great deal of the ceremonial, as I hope will be done.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I am very glad to be able to make some contribution to the debate, as two hon. Members from the Principality have already delivered balanced and loyal addresses on the subject. It seems that in the Principality there is not the same controversy on the subject as there is in Scotland and in Northern Ireland. It has been said in this debate that the modern tendency is for the kings and queens of the world to depart. I suggest that if that is even partially true, where they have departed some most peculiar and dangerous monsters have appeared in their places during recent years.
We have found that the respect and affection with which the monarchy is regarded—which has been described by the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant)—has been due to circumstances not only here but in other countries where there are monarchies. We have seen how by sheer experience many hon. Members who possibly entered the House of Commons years ago as ardent republicans have slowly come to the conviction that the monarchy has a peculiar virtue in a Commonwealth of the kind of which we are a part.
We realise, too, that a monarchy as an institution is something more than the convenient form which was suggested by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). He regarded it as merely the most convenient form of carrying out part of our system of government. To most of us, not merely on this side of the Committee but on all sides, the monarchy is more than a convenient form; it is something alive.
We all well remember how during the war there were occasions when the late King visited bombed sites. In those visits there was something more real and possibly more affecting to the people who were concerned in injuries and damage from bombing than there would have been if they had been visits made by a mere politician. A politician might have had some other reason for paying a visit, such as merely having his photograph appear in the newspapers. The visit of the monarch was something wonderful for those people.
The monarchy is, in the first place, a living symbol. We also know that it is an important part of our own constitution; and it has been truly described as the corner-stone of the Commonwealth. No other institution could fulfil its functions so well. I suggest that something so wonderful and unique cannot be obtained at a cut price. It is something that we must not expect to have easily. It has been pointed out already in this debate that, contrary to the general tendency today, there has been a very real practice of economy in the Royal Household. If I may say so, we have as a part of our constitution and a vital part of our Commonwealth something which is obtained for a very reasonable charge indeed.
I am most grateful to the Leader of the House for signifying that in principle he

is accepting the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Sir E. Keeling) and other hon. Friends, to which I have put my name, to delete the provision that the aggregate of the pensions granted in a financial year shall not exceed £2,500 a year. It is true that my right hon. Friend has accepted it in terms slightly different from the terms used on the Order Paper, but I am sure that I am not speaking only for myself in saying that we are grateful for that acceptance.
I believe there is a general feeling that the Committee should accept the figures which have been put before us. I think the term of 10 years is a reasonable one, because while we should be generous in our conception of the proposals, the proposals should be generous in time as well as in scope. We should not regard the monarch in the way that the hon. Member for Dagenham suggested, as an employee or Minister, and provision for the monarch should be made for a longer term than for a Minister. In these few words I have great pleasure in supporting the proposals made for the Civil List.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The difficulty in taking part in a debate of this kind is that if one stresses what is not a too popular point of view, one is always accused of being violently anti-Royalty and of making attacks on people who cannot come to the House of Commons and defend themselves.
Several hon. Members opposite have seemed during the course of this debate to resent that in this House, where men are free to speak their minds, one word of criticism should be uttered about the Civil List. They have said that, of course, we do not represent the vast majority of the people in the country. If that be so, if the point of view we express is so unpopular, I say that all the more credit is due to us for having the courage to express it. It is becoming a very difficult task, even in democratic countries, to express a minority point of view in certain places.
Therefore, I hope that hon. Members who have taken that line will understand that those of us who are critical of this Civil List proposal are in no way envious of the Royal Family, have no animosity and no hatred towards them. I do not in my heart feel hatred for any man, not


even for the worst Members on the Opposition benches — [Laughter.] — I mean on the opposite benches, and I have certainly more reason to detest them than I have to detest the Royal Family.
Let us consider what is taking place in this country. We hear plea after plea by the Chancellor to remember that we are living in perilous times, that we are engaged in a terrible "battle of the gap," that unless workers are restrained in their wage claims, unless everybody tightens his belt and makes sacrifices—unless all these things are done, the country will go bankrupt and that will be the end. That is so real a danger that we know that within the party opposite there is now a great struggle going on between those who support the Chancellor and those who support the Prime Minister about whether economic solvency or military security shall have priority.
That is the position which faces the country. That being so, what is the psychological effect upon the man in the mine, the man in the engineering factory, the man on the farm, when he sees grants of this magnitude being paid to certain members of the Royal Family? It is the engineers, the miners, the men in the fields and factories, who will pull this country through this crisis if it is to get through the crisis. These are the men to whom we should at all times be looking. These are the men whom we can least afford to upset. Whatever people may say about the vast majority of the working-class people being in favour of this Civil List, I do not believe that we should be able to collect it so easily if we had to collect it from them individually. As a matter of fact, I know we should not.
It has been said that we must have this expenditure because of the pageantry which the British people love—as though there would not be any pageantry if we did not have this Civil List. If hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite want to see a real pageant—

Squadron Leader A. E. Cooper: We are looking at one now.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am delighted that I am so pleasing to the hon. and gallant Member, and if that is so I will continue for longer than I had intended, and occupy a little longer time than hon. Members may like.
I say that if they want to see a real pageant let them come to Durham on the 26th of this month. Let them see the Durham miners' gala if they want pageantry, if they want to see the streets so thickly lined that all traffic has to be stopped. Of course, nobody believes that there would be no pageantry and colour in the lives of the people if we had to cut down this proposed provision, because people will at all times make their own pageantry.
To an overwhelming extent this pageantry is enjoyed only by a very small part of the country. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not with television."] Durham people have to pay for this pageantry, which they are not able to see. An hon. Member interjects "Television." In that respect, the North-East has been terribly neglected. As a matter of fact, I should be delighted if the Chancellor would accept the argument which the hon. Member is advancing and say that what would be saved by my hon. Friend's Amendment will be devoted to establishing television resources for the North-East.

Mr. R. A. Butler: Will the hon. Member allow it to be sponsored or not?

The Deputy-Chairman: I hope that neither side of the Committee will go far into the question of television.

Mr. Fernyhough: It is a weakness of mine, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that I am led away by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who ought to know better.
Let us see where there can be a cutting down. Does anybody really think it necessary, in order that the Royal Family may lead useful and dignified lives, for them to have Buckingham Palace, Balmoral, Sandringham, Holyrood, Windsor and so on. Is it really necessary to have these places manned and serviced all the time, as they are. [Interruption.] Presumably somebody is there. If the place is shut up and there are no gardeners and caretakers there—

An Hon. Member: Who said that there were not?

Mr. A. Woodburn: All I can say, so far as Balmoral is concerned, is that it is a national monument. It is used at certain times but it is open at other times to the general public, who visit it.

Mr. Fernyhough: But presumably there have to be all these servants. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Do they help themselves? Are there no servants when they have these parties? Is there a cafeteria? I should like to know.
Let me put it this way. I do not believe that the average man in the street thinks it necessary for there to be all these Royal Palaces. I am quite sure—and hon. Members opposite were so critical about housing when we were in power—that many people felt it was undesirable for the Royal Family to have all these establishments to which they could go at a time when thousands of people had not a roof of their own over their heads.
It would have been very useful, after all the destruction that took place during the war, when factories, schools and hospitals were bombed, had a recommendation been made so that these places could have been turned into residential colleges or hospitals—and there would still have been no housing problem for the Royal Family.
Let us look at something else. The Royal Family is supposed to represent the whole nation. Is it necessary for them to have to go through the circus performance through which they have to go every year at Ascot? How many miners and engineers are there at Ascot? Why is Ascot the place where the Royal Family should be on parade, as it were, every year? The same applies to the garden parties. If there is any necessity for the garden parties—

Mr. Ellis Smith: It is not only Conservative Members of Parliament who attend.

Mr. Fernyhough: It can never be said that I have attended; I am free from reproach in that respect. Most of the people who go to the Royal garden parties and functions are drawn from a very limited section of the community.

Mr. Dudley Williams: The hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) is going to tomorrow's party.

Mr. Fernyhough: I am not disputing that. But I wonder how many miners, engineers, road sweepers and farm labourers will be there tomorrow. The hon. Member must remember that there are far more of them than there are Members for Sparkbrook. It was said

that we had to grant these amounts in order to ensure a decent education for Prince Charles and to see that the Princess was sufficiently provided for when she married. Is not that rather insulting? I acknowledge that the State has always said that if people get married they are entitled to more. In 1948 we fixed unemployment benefits at 26s. and we said that if a man got married it should be increased to 42s.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is travelling a good deal wider than the Motion on the Order Paper.

Mr. Fernyhough: Surely I am entitled to draw an analogy?

Mr. M. Turner-Samuels: On a point of order. Is it really fair to mention just one hon. Member when, for instance, I and quite a number of hon. Members on this side of the Committee are not only going to the garden party but are pleased and honoured to be able to do so?

Mr. Fernyhough: If my hon. Friend is upset about it, I am sorry. What I am saying is that we introduced a principle so far as the general body of the people was concerned. We established a National Insurance scheme and under that scheme we provided that an unemployed man should get 26s. a week and, if he got married, that amount would be increased to 42s. The same principle applied to anyone who was sick.
What I cannot understand is that if we accept that on a percentage basis, why should there be this great difference between the allowances which members of the Royal Family receive when they are single and when they get married. If I were going to be the husband of a Princess I should be ashamed if I could not keep her. [An HON. MEMBER: "You have no hope."] If hon. Members were to see my wife they would know that she is the finest lady in the land, not excluding Princesses.
There is one other point which I hope the Chancellor will try to deal with, because it is important. An hon. Member opposite said that a man with an income of £15,000 from investments receives only £3,500 today, and if he has an income of £30,000 he receives only £3,900. What is the tax allowance on these Royal incomes? Are they subject to ordinary tax


or are special allowances made to such an extent that no tax is paid? I am told that they are taxable. I am glad to receive that information.
It has been said that the monarchy has departed from many countries but is more firmly established here than ever before, I agree with that. I want it to continue; but I believe that the monarchy would be more firmly cemented if the lives of members of the Royal Family accorded more with those of the majority of the people. The more they represent the vast majority of the people the more they understand the way the people live, the way they feel and what they do, the more secure the monarchy will become.
For that reason, I think that what my hon. Friend is trying to do is to protect the monarchy from those who, due to lack of understanding or failure to appreciate history, might eventually bring our own monarchy into the same disrepute among the majority of the people as that into which it has fallen in many other countries. It is because it has fallen into disrepute that it has had to be abolished.
I am sure that nobody in this Committee or many people in the country would want that to happen. I believe that if the ideas that I have tried to express—probably inarticulately and not very clearly—were embodied in the Civil List, and the lives of the Royal Family were brought more into accord with those of the majority of the people over whom they reign, it would be a far better thing. But I have never taken the line that they need all this money in order to lead dignified lives, because some of the most dignified people I know are poor people. As a matter of fact, if anybody ever talked to me about dignity and money being synonymous, I should tell him that it was nonsense, because the most dignified person in this world, in my opinion, is my own mother—and she was never more than one week's rent removed from the workhouse.
I do not accept the argument that it is necessary, if the Royal Family is to be respected, loved, admired and cherished, for it to live high up in the clouds and far removed from the people. The more it develops a kinship with the people the closer it gets to the people the more its members live the lives of the people, the more secure its future is.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. William Keenan: I wish to make only one or two short points, because what has been said has been well said. One point has already been fairly well ventilated, but I think it needs some emphasis. I do not think it is a reasonable thing to make provision as far ahead, as has been done here.
Some of the criticism that we have had today has been about something that was done a long time ago. A future Parliament may feel that what we are doing today is wrong, and it may not have an opportunity to alter it. To make provision in the way we have done for the Heir Apparent is something that ought not to be done by any Parliament. I hope it will be a long time before the child has the opportunity of becoming the Monarch.
I did not want to see the least change in our monarchy. I met the late King on several occasions and I was very sorry when he passed away. I do not want to see any change in our system, republican though I have always been; I would not change what we have for any of the other republics in the world. However, in this matter we should not make provision so far ahead. We make provision for the wife of this boy when he becomes a man, and that is much too far ahead for us to do anything usefully and properly.
A good deal has been said about the amount in the Civil List being very great. It is nearly £500,000. But I would remind the Committee that this is only the Queen's Civil List and that it does not contain the amounts paid to the other members of the Royal Family. We must remember that we have two Queen Mothers who get £70,000 a year each. There are all the other members of the Royal Family who are not contained in the List. I do not think that this Civil List contains the amount for the Prince Consort. We should not forget that the total amount involved is not the small amount imagined by some hon. Members who have given the Civil List their full support.
I thought the Chancellor of the Exchequer was out of stride when he talked about the cost of living being reflected in figures like these in the Civil List. That was stretching things too much. We cannot talk about difficulties of the cost


of living in regard to the Civil List. I could understand it in regard to somebody's basic wage rate, but not in regard to these amounts. I do not think that the Chancellor had any justification for talking about the cost of living, for I do not think it has any real application.
I share the view that we should be simpler in our approach to these matters. There is no necessity, nowadays at any rate, to perpetuate the old system of keeping the Royal House so far removed from the rest of the community.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: I had no intention originally of taking part in the debate, but I have been prompted to do so by the tone of some contributions by hon. Members opposite. It is clear to me that there is a tendency for certain hon. Members opposite to deal with a problem of this kind in an entirely different manner from that in which they deal with comparable problems concerning other people, such as those affected by the Government's Pensions (Increase) Bill.
I am a member of Standing Committee A which is considering the Bill. To draw attention to the different values that the Government and their supporters have in matters of this kind, I would merely refer hon. Members to the Second Schedule to the Bill, which lays down the proposed increases in the pensions of people previously in Government and other public services. The figures do not run into thousands or hundreds of thousands; they hardly reach tens. The table reads:

Time of beginning of pension
Annual rate where pensioner is married or has at least one dependant
Annual rate where pensioner is unmarried and has no dependants



£
£


Before 1st April, 1948
26
20

That is the top rate in the table of increases, and during the year ended 31st March that amount goes down to the fabulous sum of £6 per year where the pensioner is married or has at least one dependant, and £4 a year where the pensioner is unmarried and has no dependant. If that is not thinking and acting

in two separate, water-tight compartments, I do not know what is.

I drew that comparison to underline the fact that here we are dealing with a set of circumstances entirely removed from the ordinary facts of life with which generally we deal in Parliament. Our Amendment, which is a modest and reasonable one, suggests that there should be a review of the Civil List every 10 years. Is that not reasonable? We say that we should not finally and completely leave the Civil List for a period which might go on for 20, 30, 40 or 50 years without review. That is not the usual way in which Governments conduct their business. On all ordinary expenditure there is an annual review and an opportunity is given to consider the whole field of Government expenditure. A responsibility is laid upon Government and Parliament as to how the revenue is spent during any year.

There are features of these proposals now before the Committee which demand serious and careful examination. In the first place, there are cobwebs attached to these arrangements which could be swept away. We are still carrying on practices which have arisen over the past two centuries. The Duchy of Cornwall is a case in point. In fact, the whole basis of the Civil List—in this case the Queen's Civil List—should be considered with a view to altering fundamentally the remuneration, support and sustenance of the Royal Household.

Some of the Members supporting the Government in today's debate have taken objection to the comparisons made between the incomes of ordinary people and the huge amounts proposed in the Civil List to extend over an unlimited period. That only emphasises the point that I made earlier, that hon. Members seem to think in two separate water-tight compartments when they deal with a matter of this kind.

The financing of the Civil List needs serious overhaul. I make no apology for the last Government, although the occasion for making this provision in the Civil List did not occur in the lifetime of the two Labour Governments. This is the first occurrence since the Accession of His late Majesty. On that occasion, no suggestion was made, so far as I can gather, of a radical review or alteration


of the whole basis of payment and sustenance of the Royal Household.

Why have not the Members of the House of Commons considered seriously altering the payment and the support of the Royal Establishments to the basis common to every other Government service? Instead of making this all-in provision in the Civil List, providing thousands of pounds for every member of the Royal Family and hundreds of thousands in support of a vast Household service, we should place it under the direct control of the House of Commons from year to year, and it should be provided for in the Budget like every other public expenditure.

I suppose it is too late for anything like that to be done now, so I only throw out the suggestion. I see no reason why, in the years that lie ahead, the Government of the day should not examine the whole basis of this system and seek to put it upon a much more healthy and sound financial basis.

Another aspect of the matter has occurred to me while I have been listening to the greater part of the debate. I offer these comments especially to hon. Members on the Government side of the Chamber who repeatedly refer to the fact that the monarchy pertains not only to this country but to the Commonwealth and Empire. That fact should not only be stated but fully realised and acted upon by the Government of this country and by the Governments of the other countries in the Commonwealth and Empire. Would not all those other countries welcome the opportunity of sharing the expenditure of the Royal Household and making it in fact as well as in name the monarchy of the Commonwealth and Empire? I am sure that Canada, Australia and New Zealand would welcome that opportunity.

It would be possible on such a basis for a greater integration to take place in the functioning of the separate parts of the Commonwealth and Empire, each paying its part, as well as playing its part, in the general life and activity of this huge community, this family of nations, which is spread right around the world. If that were done, all the bickerings, all the acrid and arid criticisms often made on occasions of this kind would be eliminated. There would be

co-operation which would probably be unequalled throughout the world, and it would make the monarchy far more a monarchy of a world Commonwealth and Empire than it is at the present time.

We find it difficult in this country and in this Parliament to learn new habits of thought and new ways of life. There is some virtue in sticking to old things, provided, of course, that those old things are good things. But some old things are bad things and the sooner we get rid of them, the better for ourselves and for everyone else concerned. I suggest there is about this paraphernalia of the financing of our monarchy a mass of cobwebs and of meaningless tradition which ought to be swept away. In other words, we want some speedy rationalisation as much in this field of Government administration as in any other field.

I will content myself for the remainder of my remarks with drawing attention to one important feature of the provisions. I mentioned earlier that I have been upstairs with my colleagues of Standing Committee A dealing with increases of pensions. I suggest that the lavish provisions made in the Government's proposals in respect of the Duke of Cornwall are entirely out of place. After all, is there not enough revenue going into the Royal Household without making special provision for the Duke of Cornwall to the extent of the ninth part of the total revenues per annum of the Duchy of Cornwall? The Duke of Cornwall—

Mr. Ellis Smith: Who is the Duke of Cornwall?

Mr. Thomas: We hope ultimately that he will be the Prince of Wales. That financial provision is for a junior now aged, I think, three and a half. What I am pointing out is that the special provision made by the Government in this particular case means that by the time the person for whom the provision is made reaches 18 years of age, he will have been allocated a sum of money in the neighbourhood of £117,000. At the age of 18, his annual income will be no less than £30,000 a year. Therefore, by the time he is 21, he will already have received many times the amount that a Prime Minister would receive by continuing in office for 20 or 30 years. Is there any real comparison of rewards for


services rendered in such figures? I suggest that they make comparison altogether ridiculous.
I therefore contend, and I think it is a feeling that is fairly widely held, not only on this side, but fundamentally by Members on the opposite side—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Frederic Harris: Keep to your own side.

Mr. Thomas: We are to assume, then, that all Members on the other side agree that it is appropriate for one person, because he happens to be a member of the Royal Family, to receive in annual sums some hundreds of thousands of pounds by the time he attains the age of 21, and for the last three years before attaining his majority to receive £30,000 per annum.
Every Member of the House gets £1,000 a year. I suggest, without exaggeration or any claim that we are exceptional people, that we perform a decent job of work for the money that we receive. We get the rate for the job. Is it not absurd to suggest that for this particular individual—[Interruption.]—although, as one of my hon. Friends says, he is a lovely little boy—the reward for services should attain such ridiculous, astronomical proportions?
I am confident that if any Members of the Opposition went to any industrial town or village and talked about payments of this kind and asked the people, who have grown up from childhood in the last 25 years in those previously depressed areas, whether there was any justice in the action of the Government in proposing a payment of this kind, they would be laughed out of court.
By comparison, the Government deal with the mass of the people, on whom we depend for our livelihood and our national revenue—the people who do the work of the world—entirely differently, in a state of parsimonious saving that is a discredit to Members opposite and to those who supported previous Tory Governments between the wars.
I say to the Committee finally—[Interruption.]—I apologise for nothing that I have said, because I think that some of these things need saying in order to give some indication that some of us, at least, have some real sense of values in this

country. I ask supporters of the Government, who gladly support proposals of the kind to which I have drawn particular attention, how they justify their means test career during the years between the two wars, when they had power, and when the characteristics of most of our industrial areas were the queue outside the employment exchange, and the hunger marchers toiling miles and miles from all the industrial areas to London to call attention to their terrible plight. What did they have—generosity, fair treatment, fair play, £30,000 a year? No, they were driven back and had to stay there. It is a tragic thought, but a real fact, that a war had to come before some of them had a chance of a decent job.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Is not this rather irrelevant to the matter under discussion?

The Chairman: The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) said, "finally" and I am hoping that this is his peroration.

Mr. Thomas: I shall not trouble hon. Members on the Government benches very much longer. I know that I have rather riled them and made them think, I hope a little more deeply than they are inclined to think sometimes about many of these things. These comparisons which I have sought to make bring out in bold relief the utter hypocrisy, in many aspects, of many supporters of the Government relating to their attitude to things as they affect the masses of the people and things as they affect a comparatively small number of people. In one case they deny bare justice; in the other case they are lavish and they pour it out. There is absolutely no limit to their generosity in that case.
I call attention to that underlying contradiction in the whole philosophy of our opponents and I hope that when the time comes, which I trust will not be very much delayed, the electors of this country will show without any hesitation or doubt that they have had enough of their present rulers and seriously and definitely want a change.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) has said. An hon. Member coming from an industrial area


geographically remote from London does not feel the same—nor, indeed, can feel the same—towards the Royal Family as one born and bred in London who, in the main, has enjoyed the wealth created by the industrial north.
I believe that there is a fundamental difference between the attitude of the people coming from the north and from Scotland towards the Royal Family and the attitude of people living in the south, in England, who, because of physical and geographical reasons, are in much closer contact with the Royal Family. I can say that with a fair measure of accuracy, because I was born and bred in Durham and I am now living in the south. I can see and feel the difference in the attitude, the difference in the regard for the Royal Family, between the north and the south.
I believe that in the main it is a physical barrier which is created between the people in the north and the Royal Family. But my immediate criticism of this Civil List is that in addition to that physical barrier there is created, or intensified, an economic barrier. I believe that anything which increases the barrier between the Royal Family and the masses of the people, in a country which pretends to be democratic, is fundamentally wrong. Indeed, in these times I believe it is a psychological blunder to increase the Civil List at all, by however small an amount.
After all, we naturally cast our minds back to the General Election, when one of the great promises was that the Conservatives, when they got back into power, would cut State extravagance. I believe they have done that rather well. Anyway, they have cut State expenditure, I would not call it extravagance. But here we have a case where there was a splendid opportunity of creating an atmosphere, of giving a lead to the workers of the country and giving them some encouragement to follow the advice of the Chancellor in the application of a wage freeze.
I wish to say, frankly, in answer to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), who said that he had found no evidence of bitterness or hatred among the miners he had met, that I share that experience. There is no hatred or bitterness among the miners in West Fife. But they are very puzzled. We

are told that we are on the verge of bankruptcy, and yet we have given to an old lady—a dignified old lady, I agree—£70,000 a year—old Queen Mary, and I have the greatest respect for the old lady.
But where is the defence? Where is the defence for giving an old lady £70,000 a year on the one hand, and telling old age pensioners that, because of the economic circumstances of the country, we can only give them 2s. or 3s.? There is no logic in that position at all. I shall go back to West Fife and tell them that I cannot, and I will not, support a Civil List of this character.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Although disagreements have been expressed, I think we can at least agree on two things, and I do not think that anybody who has spoken from either side of the Committee has said anything to the contrary. Those two things are that we in this Committee believe in a constitutional monarchy as an institution, and secondly, that we are profoundly aware of the personal popularity of the present Royal Family. I think that is common ground, and I would like to add just two things about these points of agreement.
It is enormously important that the ceremonial, the colour, the pageantry, and so on, which has been referred to this evening on a number of occasions, should be associated not with those who hold the political power for the time being but with the head of the State who is above the political battle. We have seen what can happen in other countries when ceremonial and pageantry is associated with those who hold political power. Since people like pageantry—and there is not really very much disagreement on that; some of my hon. Friends perhaps take a different view—it is most important that the liking for it should be indulged in in this sort of way rather than in the other sort of way.
It is not necessary for me to emphasise the popularity of the Royal Family. We are all aware of the tremendously heavy burdens that they carry in the way of attending functions of one kind and another all over the country. I think also we could agree that their popularity, as one of my hon. Friends said, is probably greater than it has ever been


before, what is in no small part due to the work they have done in that way during the past 15 years.
Let us not under-estimate this popularity abroad as well as at home. We have only to consider what an appalling loss it would be to our country if we did not have a popular monarchy as we have it at the moment to realise that the Royal Family are in a true sense a great national asset. When I use the word "abroad" I mean, of course, the Commonwealth, but I do not limit this to the Commonwealth. We have seen how extraordinarily well received were the late King and the Queen Mother, and Her Majesty and the Duke of Edinburgh on their travels in France and America.
In saying that, I should like to disagree with something said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) and one or two other hon. Gentlemen opposite. I do not think that one should approach this problem on the basis of a kind of barter between the Monarch on the one side and Parliament on the other. I do not agree with the argument that because at one time the King gave up revenues derived from Crown Lands, amounting in all at present to more than the Civil List, we can therefore say that we have done a good bargain.
I do not think that one can deny that the revenues not only of the Crown Lands but also of the Duchy of Cornwall, for instance, are really public revenues. I am fairly sure that the Royal Family would not wish to contest that argument. I should have thought that it was far better to approach the problem not on the basis of some kind of bargain but simply by saying, "We believe in the monarchy; we hold that they perform important and valuable functions. How can we assist this monarchy? How much does it require?" We should not say that in any niggling sense, but from the point of view of looking into an expenditure, as I think that we are entitled to look.
It is a question of looking at the case on its merits. As a member of the Select Committee, with my colleagues I was obliged to consider the problem as it faced us: what sort of sum was required? The first point to emphasise—it has been mentioned by others, but I must underline it again as it seems to have been overlooked by some of my hon. Friends

—is that if we compare the proposed Civil List with the Civil List at the beginning of the last reign and, of course, still more with the Civil List at the beginning of the reign of King George V, we see that there has been an enormous reduction in real expenditure.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, in opening the debate from this side of the Committee, if we were to maintain the same Civil List in real terms today, it would certainly have to be of the order of £800,000. Therefore, there has been a substantial reduction, and I cannot agree with the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) that the Sovereign has been very successful in advancing a wage claim, in the light of what has happened to prices in the meanwhile. Certainly, the Sovereign and the Civil List generally have fallen a long way behind the rise in prices.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas) suggested that it was all irrelevant, and that one did not have to consider the cost of living in this connection. We really cannot take that view. We do have to consider the higher wages that have to be paid to the various people working in the Royal Household, the higher cost of food and the higher cost of repairs, household equipment, and so on.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: I think my right hon. Friend is seeking to draw a false conclusion from the point I was trying to make. I was not suggesting that there has not been an increase in costs and increased prices even in the case of the upkeep of the Royal Household. What I was suggesting was that the total previously going into the Royal Household was excessive in any case, whatever the prices might be, either now or before.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. I am simply making the point that, whether or not the amount was excessive before, it is certainly far less now in real terms than it was then, and that anyone who looks at the facts of the situation will realise that.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire mentioned figures for Holland, but I was not very impressed with those figures. They amounted, in all, to £200,000 for the


Dutch monarchy We are a very much larger country than Holland, we have a substantially larger population, and we should expect that the British monarchy, the centre of the British Commonwealth, would cost a little more than the Dutch monarchy. It seems to me that £200,000 for the monarchy of a fairly small country is not particularly small in relation to what we are spending.
I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, for the most part, the discussion has centred on the sum in general—the sum of £475,000. Let us break it down a little. Of that £475,000, £95,000 is for the contingencies margin. Part of that, it is true—up to £25,000, if the proposals of the Select Committee are accepted—will be at the disposal of the Sovereign for assisting members of the Royal Family who receive no grant from Parliament. The rest of it—the other £70,000—is simply a margin. and, therefore, the true figure, if we are thinking of immediate expenditure is £405,000, and not £475,000 Of that sum, all but £60,000 is either committed on pensions or goes in Classes II and III for what, in effect, is the maintenance of the Royal Palaces and the Royal Family living there. They are, in a sense, the expenses of the business of having a monarchy.
In some ways—and this is one of the reasons why we desire to see further transfers to ordinary Votes—this is really expenditure which should be treated like other types of expenditure by the Ministry of Works in connection with the upkeep of premises and the provision of all sorts of things concerning ceremonial of different kinds.
It really is up to those who criticise these figures to show what they would dispense with—though not in any detail, for I think that would be unreasonable. If we are proposing to cut down by £200,000 the total amount of the Civil List, I think we have to face the fact that anything like that must involve closing down some of the Palaces. My hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) was perfectly honest about this, and I think he was the only one who was. He said that he believed that it would be a good thing to shut down some of these Palaces altogether.
I have no hesitation in saying that the people of the country generally would look with dismay upon any proposition which involved the closing of one of the homes of the Royal Family—Windsor Castle, Buckingham Palace, Holyrood House—though they are very seldom there—or Balmoral. Bat if that is what is thought, then it is logical that they should be closed. If, however, that opinion is not held, then something like Classes II and III of the Civil List will be necessary.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there would be a substantial public opinion in London for making the huge Buckingham Palace into flats for the homeless population?

Mr. Gaitskell: Personally, I do not agree with that. My hon. Friend may know some people who would like that, but I think there are many more who would be absolutely horrified at the prospect. One has only to see the people standing outside Buckingham Palace continuously—

Mr. A. C. Manuel: There would be no shortage of tenants.

Mr. Gaitskell: There would be no shortage of tenants, but there would be many who would not get flats and who would be very annoyed about it. But there it is we can agree to differ on that. I only wish to show the implications of the proposal to make the substantial reductions. It really will not do for people to say, "Yes, I belive in ceremony, in pageantry, in colour, and all these things. I like Windsor Castle and Buckingham Palace. Nevertheless, we must make a slashing reduction," because I do not think it could be done on the basis of the present arrangements.
But that does not mean that we on this side of the Committee are entirely satisfied with the proposals of the Select Committee, and we have put down some Amendments to which I should like briefly to refer. I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything to the Amendment relating to the proposed payments to the Duke of Cornwall. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) dealt with that very thoroughly, and some other of my hon. Friends have explained our position, which is simply this. We do not see why a minor below the age of 18 should receive £150,000 during


the course of the next 15 years; that is to say, from the ages of three to 18. We do not see that there is any case for that at all. Of course, there will be some expenses for his education, but they will not be of a very high or expensive order, and we think that that is something which his parents could, in the normal way, readily afford to meet themselves. We are, therefore, opposed to that payment.
There is another Amendment to which I wish to refer, because it was discussed in the Select Committee and it is referred to in the Appendix. That is the proposed provision to be made for the daughters of the Sovereign and of Princess Margaret on marriage. Some of us feel that that also is an unnecessary provision, and that it would be very much better to leave to Parliament at the time the question of what payment should be made on marriage.
There is nothing revolutionary about such a proposal, because it always used to be the custom, when one of the children of the Sovereign married, for the matter to go to Parliament. That was the normal thing, I think I am right in saying, throughout the 19th century. I do not want to go into it in great detail, but I do suggest that there is a case for waiting until we see the circumstances; whether, for instance, the marriage were to somebody here so that we should have the Princess in this country living as one of our Royal Family, or whether perhaps she married somebody abroad. We do not know.
I do not offer any comment on whether the figure is adequate or inadequate. There might be circumstances in which it would be inadequate. On the other hand, many people feel that at the moment it is an adequate amount. That is a matter which some of us think should have been dealt with in the way we have suggested, but I do not propose to say any more about it now.
I come now to our main Amendment, which takes the form of limiting the proposals to a period of 10 years. The case for this is, I think, very strong, and I put it to the Committee quite seriously on the following grounds. First of all, we all know—and this is common ground, both in the Select Committee and here as well—that there may be substantial changes in the value of money during this reign.
If, as we all hope, it lasts a long time, perhaps for 50 years, there may be very substantial changes indeed. And I do not think that even those who support particularly the proposal for the contingencies margin, which is intended to deal with this problem, feel entirely satisfied that it is an adequate way of dealing with it. It is true that it provides and will provide, one hopes, a fund which will accumulate at first and out of which deficiencies can be met later if there were to be a fall in the value of money. But we must frankly admit that the amount we have selected to put in the contingencies margin—one-fifth of the Civil List total—is, and must be, a purely arbitrary figure. We do not know whether it will be enough or not.
Secondly, I do not think that the suggestion mentioned in paragraph 6 of the Report—that Her Majesty, after all, can ask Parliament to reconsider the matter at any time—is entirely satisfactory. I should not have thought that we wished to put Her Majesty into the position of having to come back and ask for more. I do not think that is a very appropriate proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Flint. East (Mrs. White), in her admirable speech, pointed out the rather absurd position that here we are providing quite a substantial income for the widow of a child who is not yet four years old. That, of course, is a circumstance which one cannot very well avoid if one decides to have a Civil List and one tries to make it last for the whole of the reign.
There are two other reasons why we think the 10-year provision would be a wise one. Somebody referred to the fact that the Select Committee only met nine times. We did, and we had to make a Report quickly for reasons which the Chancellor has explained. We had to get the Civil List settled within six months of the death of the late King. I do not think that on our side of the Committee we felt that we had really had time to go into two matters. The first matter was the possibility and desirability of transferring to ordinary Votes some part of the expenditure hitherto covered by the Civil List.
There are two or three reasons why that would be a good thing to do, if it were possible. They are, first, that, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, there is a great deal of misunderstanding about the sums


allocated for the Civil List. As he quite rightly forecast on an earlier occasion, as soon as the Report was published there was a newspaper headline, "£475,000 for the Queen."
I have just explained that the greater part of that is either a contingency margin or is associated with the upkeep and maintenance as living quarters of the various Palaces. The more that we can transfer to ordinary Departmental Votes the less misunderstanding there will be in the minds of the public about this whole situation.
Secondly, of course, to the extent that we can transfer to the Ministry of Works, or possibly to some other Department, expenditure hitherto covered by the Civil List we avoid the whole problem of rising costs and prices, because if those items were parts of ordinary Estimates they could be examined every year. In passing, I am bound to say that if we did have the Civil List considered year by year then it is very likely that by now it would be at a higher level than it is. There would be a great deal of pressure to increase it. I admit that straight away. But if, for example, we could transfer the upkeep of the Royal mews to the Ministry of Works to that extent we could adjust expenditure on it year by year, and the problem we face in trying to handle this matter in various ways would disappear.
It is sometimes objected that we do not want to have detailed Departmental control over the expenditure of the Royal Household. That is really a question of degree. Nobody would, I think, suggest that it would be desirable to transfer to Votes expenditure which was closely related to the personal and intimate lives of the Royal Family; of course not. But there is a great deal of expenditure in Classes II and III which cannot be so described.
We have, of course, gone some way in the process. We have taken out, I think, the industrial employees at Windsor and one or two other places. During our period of office we transferred the cost of fuel and power to the Votes. We say we believe that there is room for further transference. We should have liked to have more time to examine this. We think it should be looked into, and the

best way to look into it is to have another Select Committee to see what can be done.
I do not think that there is anything in any way wrong about making changes of this kind when they are related to what one might call official expenses, any more than there is anything wrong about expenditure incurred, shall we say, by the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a voyage which either of them might have to undertake on behalf of the State being borne, as it must be, out of public funds.
The third reason why we think it would be a good thing to have a 10-year rule is this. Many of my hon. Friends have spoken in this debate with feeling and sincerity about the desirability of having a simple way of life for the monarchy and the Court. We feel that that is a desirable end. It is quite obvious that it has become very much simpler over the last 30, 40 or 50 years. We are all aware of that. We are not, however, entirely satisfied that it would not be possible at one and the same time both to ease the burdens on the monarchy—something about which I think we are all concerned—and at the same time introduce this rather simpler, less formal type of existence.
I say at once that so far as I am concerned I would not interfere with pageantry and colour, which is enjoyed and appreciated and indeed loved by the great mass of the people. I am not in favour of interfering with that type of ceremony, but I think it would be found that certain other aspects of the life of the Royal Family might perhaps yield some easing of burden. We might find it possible to relieve the Queen of some of her very heavy tasks which she has to sustain. For example, at the moment—I think I am right in saying that the Committee Report refers to it—there is virtually never any period, even when the Queen is on holiday, when she will not be bothered with official papers of one kind or another.
I am not sure that that is necessary. I should have thought it possible to come to a definite understanding that there is a period of the year—three or four weeks, a month—when she can get right away and keep completely free of any interference, any formality or any ceremonial.


It might be possible to make arrangements for somebody else—if we want the head of the State to continue to be available—to examine the papers. It might not be necessary to bother anybody with them. That is one example. A careful scrutiny would reveal a good many more.
What are the arguments against this? Members opposite have said that that is the kind of thing which should be left to the Royal Family themselves. I readily agree, and I am sure we all agree on this, that over the last 20 or 30 years the monarchy has, if I may use the term, moved with the times. There has certainly been a marked difference. But it is not clear to me that it is always very easy for the Sovereign to take the initiative in this very matter. There may well be occasions when she herself would feel that it would be desirable to reduce the ceremonial, to have less formality, to get rid of some of the more tiresome and less rewarding functions, but she might not think it quite proper to make that suggestion. I do not see why the House of Commons should not help in the matter.
If the plan of the Government and the majority of the Select Committee is carried out this is the only opportunity we have, throughout the whole reign, of considering this matter and making suggestions of this kind. Therefore, we propose that the same committee which looks into this question of the transfer to Departmental Votes should give some consideration to the other problem of reducing the burden on the monarchy and introducing less formality and more simplification. I must say at once, to my hon. Friends who proposed to move big reductions that I do not think this would make a very substantial saving. There would probably be some saving, but I do not think there would be a substantial saving on Classes II and III unless we are prepared to close altogether some of the Royal Palaces. I am not at all in favour of that.
The second argument which has been used is that it is a bad thing to discuss the affairs of the monarchy and the amount of provision to be made for them as often as every 10 years. I find it very difficult to accept that argument. I should not have thought that anybody would feel that today's debate had been embarrassing—as was suggested by the hon. Member for

Somerset, North (Mr. Leather). I know that he objected to one speech which was made by an hon. Member on this side of the Committee; he may be unduly sensitive.
But do we want to get into the sort of atmosphere where we are not free to talk about members of the Royal Family, how they live and what they spend? Is not there something fundamentally unhealthy about that outlook? I should have thought that there was everything to be said for an occasional discussion. Every 10 years is not very often. Indeed, one hon. Member opposite thought that it was just about the right period. He probably thought that it was a Government Amendment. I did not bother to interrupt him, because he was just coming to the end of his speech.
I should have thought that precisely because of the changed character of the monarchy and precisely because they are much more in touch with the people generally than they have ever been before, there was a good deal to be said for an occasional open discussion of this whole question in Parliament. After all, we should be able to do one thing in such a discussion—as I hope we have done today—and that is, to clear up a lot of misunderstanding about the whole question of the provision for the monarchy. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite feel that the debate has been a waste of time from that point of view. I do not: I think it has done good—as I think the Report of the Select Committee has done good—and in 10 years' time what has been said today will long since have been forgotten.
It is for all those reasons that I think the proposal for a review on these lines is thoroughly desirable and although after the discussion we had in the Committee, I do not expect that there will be a change, I hope very much that in due course we shall have an opportunity of returning to this subject.

9.34 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I think we have had a very useful debate. Nobody would disagree with the words which fell from the right hon. Gentleman opposite in the opening part of his remarks, namely, that there has been a general feeling in support of our beloved constitutional monarchy and a general feeling


that a degree of pageantry is valuable to us all in the drab lives we have to lead.
It will be my duty to reply as shortly as I can to a great many questions which were raised in a debate which was almost a record one—considering the number of speakers who have been fitted in since a quarter to four this afternoon. I will do my best to divide up the replies into four different compartments.
The first will be to answer the right hon. Gentleman about the request of himself and his hon. and right hon. Friends for a review; the second to discuss again this question of the transfer of part of the Civil List to Votes; the third to do my best to answer some very embarrassing personal questions which I am not really in a position to answer, and the fourth to deal with the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benson) whose attitude on the subject of the Duchy of Cornwall has been supported by many other hon. Members.
Before I come to those four heads, I should like to say that I will attempt to deal with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. I should also like to say that I thought the speech of the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) was particularly helpful, although I did not agree with all its contents. I should also like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn, West (Mr. Assheton) for his contribution.
I am inclined to agree, from the historical angle, with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) that there is no actual bargain with the hereditary revenues. It should be clear to the Committee that the hereditary revenues were originally the moneys that ran the country and there was, in fact, no actual bargain. I cannot actually agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the lands of the Duchy of Cornwall, for example, are necessarily on an exact par, as I shall show later, with the hereditary revenues, although I do not deny the power of Parliament to take action if it so desires.
I will not join in the controversy between the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Healy), whom we so seldom have the opportunity of hearing, and my hon. and gallant Friend

the Member for Down, North (Sir W. Smiles). I think we had better leave them to continue the fight on it. I would only say that where we have had republican speeches we have listened to them and their obvious sincerity. I feel certain that the words of the right hon. Gentleman are correct, and that if we take this debate, as we have all tried to take it, in the right spirit, it can do nothing but good. I would ask people outside not to exaggerate any differences of opinion that they may have heard and not to think that because hon. Members expressed themselves on these matters there is any taint or streak of disloyalty in any of our observations.
The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mr. I. O. Thomas), I am afraid, deserves a special mention from me. First, he was the hon. Member who spoke by far the longest in the debate, which is a distinction in itself. Secondly, I must honestly say, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that it is most unfair and unsuitable in a debate of this sort to attempt to make capital against the Tories because they have made certain proposals, when I deliberately moved this Motion attempting to adhere to the findings of a Select Committee of the House. I am not aware that the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friends in general have taken exception to the findings of the Committee, although we have paid attention to the Amendments which they have put on the Order Paper. I think that we on this side can afford to ignore the observations of the hon. Member for The Wrekin.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: I ought to make it perfectly clear—I thought I had done so before—that my observations were directed not against the findings of the Select Committee as such, but against the general attitude of some hon. Members on the Government side who have made contributions to the debate.

Mr. Butler: We must leave it to students of politics to decide which arguments prevail when the debate is studied at a later date.
I come now to the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman for having a review in 10 years. This matter was, of course, fairly fully canvassed in the course of our discussions in the Select Committee, and the Committee came to this


conclusion, which from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman is modified by his Amendment:
Your Committee have come to the conclusion that the usual procedure of fixing the amount of the Civil List at the beginning of the reign should be followed on this occasion.
I should like to remind the Committee that that has been the invariable practice and tradition in the past. It has been the practice and tradition for a very good reason, that one great point about a constitutional monarchy is that it should be above politics. While occasions like this when the Sovereign comes to the House or to the Committee, as has been done today, for Supply for a period must be accepted, it really would be contrary to the best interests of our own relationship with that constitutional monarchy if we were to demand too frequent reviews, especially in matters of money.
I think it is very much healthier for us all, whatever our views are, to attempt to settle these matters by loking ahead so that we can get on with our own work and, as one hon. Member said, with our own quarrels, and, as the hon. Member for Edge Hill said, with an extreme view or an extreme policy under the shelter of the constitutional monarchy without causing that monarchy to come too frequently to Parliament for money. That has been the practice in the past and that has been our tradition. Like a good many things connected with traditions, I think it is probably wise and sensible.
I am the first to realise that there are some difficulties. We have to look very far ahead, as I said in my opening remarks, about the widow of a Duke who is only three years old. That is one of the more extreme examples of the method which otherwise has all the values of tradition behind it and all the soundness of practice to recommend it.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the contingencies margin. It was precisely because we had a contingencies margin provided for in the Select Committee's Report that we thought it possible—I do not want to use profane words on this occasion—to face the future with equanimity. I believe this contingencies margin, which is in the terms of a supplementary provision, will, under the trustee arrangements which we have made, operate successfully over a long number of years to come. It has to be

remembered that, while this margin will he used to fill any deficit, it may well be that it will accumulate, and there are elaborate provisions set out in the Report for its accumulation and for its treatment at the end of the reign. When the Bill is published, I shall be indicating to the House the nature of the exact provisions for the fund, and I hope we shall then debate it and find that it is a tolerable method of dealing with the future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. W. W. Astor) raised one question arising out of this contingencies margin. He mentioned in particular one member of the Royal Family, the Duchess of Kent. We are all aware of the very great service rendered by the Duchess since her tragic bereavement, and even before. We are all aware of the circumstances in which she has unfortunately been placed. I do not want to go into any personal cases further tonight. I simply want to say this, that the £25,000, which is referred to in this document, is at the disposal of Her Majesty for the purpose of dealing with cases of those who most need that attention. I think we had better leave the inquiry of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe like that, and he and the rest of us can be assured that cases needing attention will receive that attention.
The hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant) dealt with this aspect of this contingency fund as a member of the Committee. I should like to thank him for his speech and to say that I think he answered some of the criticisms that were made about this provision far better than I could do. One or two Members, particularly the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) referred to the problem of ceremonial, which was referred to in more decorous terms by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, South. Even though the terms of the right hon. Gentleman were more decorous, I must say that, radically as I disagreed with the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton, I could not but acknowledge it was a good speech and his arguments were so forcefully put that he deserves a certain degree of answer.
The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) also raised this question of ceremonial. We on this side of the Committee take a very definite view about the manner in which we consider


that the future ceremonial of the Court shall be organised and managed. We consider that this matter should be left absolutely within the discretion of Her Majesty the Queen and of the Royal Family. I cannot speak for them, nor can I speak for Her Majesty. It would not be my business to do so, but I feel absolutely certain, as has been said in the course of this debate, that our monarchy has moved with the times, and that that will be typical of their procedure in the future in this matter.
The hon. Member for Flint, East raised the question of presentations at Court. If I may say so, that is entirely a matter of opinion. Some people are bored by these presentations and others appear to like them, but when we make remarks about the ceremonial of the Court let us remember that there are some aspects of it, particularly the Investitures, if I may give one example, which go very deep into the hearts and feelings of our people.
I raise the question of Investiture to show the Committee that, in considering this matter in the last months and weeks, I have investigated, both for myself and by questions to other people, the future use of Buckingham Palace, which the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) suggested might be turned into flats. That idea would not be acceptable to a great majority of the citizens of London, to the great majority of the people of this country and, particularly, to the great majority of the people in the Commonwealth and overseas countries.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it might appeal to newly-married couples?

Mr. Butler: I am not sure that it would be quite as comfortable as one of the new houses which the present Government are building.
It has not escaped me, or my Ministerial colleagues, or my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee, that if, with a new reign and a young Queen, some economy could be made in buildings, for example in Buckingham Palace, which is not a particularly elegant structure, there might be a great saving of money. It appears on examination that this would not be a move which would commend

itself to the public and it would make impossible many of the more valuable forms of ceremonial which, as I have said, go deep into the hearts and feelings of our people.
This leads me to the next heading, which was: Could not some of this expense be transferred to the Votes? If the Committee will turn to page 13 of the Report, they will see that some £50,000, under previous Administrations, has already been transferred to the Votes. They will see further, in our Report, that some £25,000 of expenses for what are known as "the industrial staff," that is, the upkeep staff more or less, is also being transferred to Votes. We had to consider, both as Members of the Government side and as Members of the Select Committee, whether we could honourably and practically recommend further transfers to Votes.
There is a limit to which we can carry this process. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) referred, in a rather damp and liquid expression, to "a pool of horses." I suppose he meant that the invaluable Windsor Greys are in some sense to be liquidated or lent out to brewers and others. We examined the whole position of the horses. We were assured that there has been a reduction from 86 to 35 horses, and that the remaining horses are essential if the ceremonial which some of us so much like is to go on. I am acquainted with the working of a pool of motor cars in my official capacity, but I strongly recommend the Committee not to follow the idea of a pool of horses. I would further say that the working of these horses is quite economical. They are used for other work in other towns when they are not being used for ceremonials.
This leads me to make a remark which goes to the heart of the matter. If we go on transferring very much more to Votes, we shall take the heart out of what is, in our British monarchy, a personal household. That personal household runs in a certain way. There are personal loyalties within that household. I do not believe it would be valuable, even in the case of the mews which, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said quite rightly, is the easiest example of transfer, to make any further transfers at the present time.
There is another objection, namely, that if further items were transferred to the


Votes we would get into the most embarrassing situation both for the Ministers responsible—who would feel that they were not as wholly responsible for that item of expenditure as for the rest of their Votes—and for the accounting officer. Further, the Committee must think of this last argument: that if, say, Windsor Castle were transferred to Votes and turned into a museum, I am assured, on the investigation I have made, that there would not necessarily be a saving of Government money.
It would simply be taking it out of one pocket instead of taking it out of the other, because we should simply have the money on Votes instead of in the Civil List. From the investigation I have made I am satisfied that the administration of Windsor Castle and its gardens, being, as it is, the most ancient home of a Royal Family in the world, is better left as it is and not transferred to Votes at the present time.
Now I come to some of the difficult personal questions which I have been asked. One hon. Member has asked whom Princess Margaret is to marry? Quite honestly, I cannot say. It has been put to me: should we make an allowance for Princess Margaret on marriage? We have been asked to consider whether she will go abroad or stay at home. I do not know the answer to that either. What I do know is that this Committee should make adequate provision for her on marriage, in which case I think that she will not only have a happier but a more dignified future.
Then I have been asked some questions about the Duke of Edinburgh. I am unable to answer the constitutional points raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Bellenger) since I have not got the answer in my head. But what I can say is that the Duke, from all public appearances, is carrying out his difficult and responsible task with extreme dignity, that he is in need of a special staff to conduct his business, and that he is in need of a special fund for the very considerable expenses which are really nothing to do with his private occupations but are connected with his public duties.

Mr. Bellenger: I quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman has not got the answer to this question in his head, but

does he recognise its constitutional importance? It is a question that will have to be solved, whether it arises on the Civil List now or at a later date.

Mr. Butler: I quite agree, but it took a great deal of time to develop the constitutional position of the previous Prince Consort. In this case, where we have not exactly an analogous position, I recommend the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman to follow me in awaiting evolution rather than expecting the matter to be settled by a Parliamentary answer tonight. I fully understand the reason for the right hon. Gentleman putting the question and I am only sorry that I cannot give him any further answer.
The only other personal questions put were two. One was why members of the Royal Family could not indulge in commercial activities. Well, as has been pointed out, after two generations there is an understanding within the Royal Family that they can. However, I think that the present rule, which we must leave to the Royal Family and not try to settle ourselves here, is thoroughly sensible. It would not only be unfair to themselves, but it would also be unfair to others if they were to enter the world of advertising, commerce or any other of our modern business affairs. I really think it would be undignified and unusual.
When one thinks of the comparatively small numbers of the Royal Family now—there are not the great number of brothers or others who can take on the work as there have been in the past, I think we should feel thankful that other members of the Royal Family are now coming along to take part in those public duties which are of such great value to our country and also to our reputation overseas, as the right hon. Gentleman so wisely said.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) a question about tax allowances. We had better leave those details until we come to the Bill. The Sovereign naturally, except when her or his private landed estates are governed by the Act of 1862, is free from tax, but other members of the Royal Family work under a system of allowance for expenses which is defined under the Income Tax law as recently consolidated. I shall certainly be glad to make further reference to the details


of that matter, if it is wanted, in the course of the discussion on the Bill next week.
Having attempted to answer the personal questions, I come, last, to the rather important issue of the Duchy of Cornwall. This was dealt with at the time when Mr. Neville Chamberlain was Chancellor of the Exchequer and in the settlement of 1936–37. In dealing with this important matter, the Committee should understand broadly the constitutional position. The original arrangements under which the Duchy went to the Duke of Cornwall were by a Charter of Edward III, and to that extent the Duchy can be said to belong to the Heir to the Throne.
That point, of course, is arguable, because we must as Parliamentarians reserve our constitutional position so as to regulate these affairs as we think best, and I would not attempt to make any revocation from that position. But we should also pay some attention to tradition and realise that during all these centuries it has been the normal traditional practice for the revenue of the Duchy in one way or another to go to the Heir to the Throne.
In 1936–37, a considerable invasion was made of this general principle and an allowance of some £24,000 a year was made to the Duke of the time during his minority. What has been suggested by the Select Committee this time? It has been suggested that an allowance of £10,000 a year should be made to the Duke during his minority, rising to a figure of £30,000 at the age of 18, which for members of the Royal Family, and particularly for the Heir to the Throne, means practically the majority from the point of view of work and responsibility; and probably he wants a household, and so forth.
I do not think it reasonable for the Committee to think that the Duke, when he gets £240,000 from the revenues of the Duchy of Cornwall, which traditionally belongs to the Heir to the Throne, should be getting too much when Parliament—that is, the Exchequer—is getting £1,380,000 during this period. I am almost ashamed that the Exchequer has made so good a bargain.

Mr. Gaitskell: If the right hon. Gentleman rests his case simply on tradition, how does he justify taking all that money away from the Duchy of Cornwall?

Mr. Butler: I was quite aware in considering the debating powers of the right hon. Gentleman that this dialectical dagger would be pointed at my heart, and I have already prepared for this argument. I answer it by saying that in modern times it has been a tradition for the Exchequer to take a greater degree of the revenues than before, and being a good. Chancellor of the Exchequer, I thought it my duty to take a little more than before, but not to take the whole amount. I think that what we have left to the Duke in his minority is fair when we understand—

Mr. J. Hudson: Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered the tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall in these consultations?

Mr. Butler: I am very glad that the hon. Member has raised the point of the tenants of the Duchy of Cornwall, because that enables me to say this. As the young Duke grows up, it will be of special value to him to understand the administration of the Duchy of Cornwall, to make himself familiar with the personalities, including the tenants, in the Duchy and the workpeople who work on his farms, and so to understand administration in the best sense from the bottom, which will train him all the better for his work when he succeeds to the Throne. Therefore, we have deliberately considered the interests of the tenants in not attempting to cut off the Duke of Cornwall altogether from the administration of his estates. That is one of our most priceless traditions and one which we should maintain.

Mr. Hudson: I happen to be one of the tenants.

Mr. Butler: If the hon. Member is one of the tenants of the Duke, I feel quite happy about the Duke's future education, except in one respect.
I have done my best to answer the many points raised in the debate. I do not think that we have been wrong to have had an occasional smile. I do not think hon. Members have been wrong, nearly every hon. Member to whom I have listened, in showing their humanity towards the Royal Family, including the


critics—they have perhaps been the most humane in their observations.
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire, referring to the young mother, and other hon. Members have not been wrong to show humanity or humour in dealing with this matter. But I think we should end on a note of dignity and tradition. I therefore remind the Committee of words which were used in the 1936–37 discussions. On a Motion moved by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, these words were used in an Amendment to indicate the feelings of my hon. and right hon. Friends:
That whereas the liberties of the people and the integrity of the Empire are deeply rooted in the Constitutional Monarchy, and whereas the ancient usages, ceremonies and

traditions centring upon the Crown, have become, even more than in former times, a bulwark against dictatorship, and the symbol of the union of all members of the British Commonwealth of Nations, we hereby affirm that we do not desire any changes in the style and establishment of the Sovereign and his Family, other than those which His Majesty may himself"—

now we say "Her Majesty"—
see fit to make from time to time.

Amendment proposed: In line 2. after Crown," insert:
for a period not exceeding ten years."—[Mr. Gaitskell.]

Question put. "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 211; Noes. 239.

Division No. 199.]
AYES
[10.1 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Adams, Richard
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lindgren, G. S.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Ewart, R.
Logan, D. G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Fernyhough, E.
MacColl, J. E.


Awbery, S. S.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
McInnes, J.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Foot, M. M.
McLeavy, F.


Baird, J.
Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bartley, P.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Gibson, C. W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Bence, C. R.
Glanville, James
Manuel, A. C.


Benn, Wedgwood
Gooch, E. G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Benson, G.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mellish, R. J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A, (Ebbw Vale)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Mitchison, G. R


Bing, G. H. C.
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Wakefield)
Morley, R.


Blackburn, F.
Grey, C. F.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Blyton, W. R.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mort, D. L.


Boardman, H.
Grimond, J.
Moyle, A.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Nally, W.


Bowles, F. G.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hamilton, W. W.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Brockway, A. F.
Hannan, W.
Oliver, G. H.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hargreaves, A.
Orbach, M.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hastings, S.
Oswald, T.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Herbison, Miss M.
Pannell, Charles


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Holman, P.
Pargiter, G. A.


Callaghan, L. J.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Parker, J.


Carmichael, J.
Houghton, Douglas
Paton, J.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hoy, J. H.
Pearson, A.


Chapman, W. D
Hubbard, T. F.
Peart, T. F.


Chetwynd, G. R
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Clunie, J.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Poole, C. C.


Cocks, F. S.
Hughes, Rector (Aberdeen, N.)
Porter, G.


Coldrick, W.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Collick, P. H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Cove, W. G.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Proctor, W. T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Pryde, D. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Janner, B.
Rankin, John


Daines, P.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Rhodes, H.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Richards, R.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, T. W. (Marioneth)
Robans, Rt. Hon. A.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Keenan, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Delargy, H. J.
Kenyon, C.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
King, Dr. H. M.
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kinley, J.
Royle, C.




Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wigg, George


Shackleton, E. A. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilkins, W. A.


Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Williams, David (Neath)


Slater, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thomas Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Williams Ronald (Wigan)



Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Timmons J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Snow, J. W.
Turner-Samuels, M.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Sorensen, R. W.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Viant, S. P.
Wyatt, W. L.


Sparks, J. A.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Yates, V. F.


Steele, T.
West, D. G.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John



Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E, Flint)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wallace.


Stross, Dr. Barnett
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.





NOES


Alport, C. J. M.
Galbraith, Cmdr, T. D. (Pollok)
McKibbin, A. J.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Galbraith, T. G D. (Hillhead)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Maclean, Fitzroy


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gough, C. F. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Gower, H. R.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Baldwin, A. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Banks, Col. C.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Barlow, Sir John
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Markham, Major S. F.


Baxter, A. B.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Marples, A. E.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Marshall, Doug as (Bodmin)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maude, Angus


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maudling, R.


Bevins, J, R. (Toxteth)
Hay, John
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Black, C. W.
Heath, Edward
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Bossom, A. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mellor, Sir John


Bowen, E. R.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Nicholls, Harmar


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Holt, A. F.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Bullard, D. G.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hulbert, Whig Cmdr. N. J.
Nutting, Anthony


Butcher, H. W.
Hurd, A. R.
Oakshott, H. D.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R A. (Saffron Walden)
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.


Carson, Hon. E.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Channon, H.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Osborne, C.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Partridge, E.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Jennings, R.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Cole, Norman
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Colegate, W. A.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Peyton, J. W. W.


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Pitman, I. J.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Powell, J. Enoch


Cranborne, Viscount
Lambton, Viscount
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Profumo, J. D.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Leather, E. H. C.
Raikes, H. V.


Deedes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rayner, Brig. R


Digby, S. Wingfield
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Redmayne, M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lindsay, Martin
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Dormer, P. W.
Linstead, H. N.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robson-Brown, W.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Roper, Sir Harold


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Russell, R. S.


Erroll, F. J.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Finlay, Graeme
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fletcher Cooke, C.
McAdden, S. J.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Fort, R.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Scott, R. Donald


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Gage, C. H.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Shepherd, William







Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Summers, G. S.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Sutoliffe, H.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Snadden, W. McN.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Watkinson, H. A.


Soames, Capt. C.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Spearman, A. C. M.
Tilney, John
Wellwood, W.


Speir, R. M.
Touche, Sir Gordon
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Turner, H. E. L.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Turton, R. H.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Stevens, G. P.
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Vane, W. M. F.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Wills, G.


Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Vosper, D. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Wade, D. W.



Studholme, H. G.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Drew? and Mr. Kaberry.

Amendment proposed: In line 4, leave out "£475,000," and insert "£250,000."—[Mr. Carmichael]

Question put, "That £475,000' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 344; Noes. 25.

Division No. 200.]
AYES
[10.11 p.m.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Colegate, W. A.
Hannan, W.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Hare, Hon. J. H.


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Cranborne, Viscount
Hay, John


Athton, H. (Chelmsford)
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hayman, F. H.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)


Aster, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Herbison, Miss M.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Daines, P.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)


Awbery, S. S.
Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Bacon, Miss Alice
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hinchingbrocke, Viscount


Baldwin, A. E.
Deedes, W. F.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Banks, Col. C.
Digby, S. Wingfield
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Barlow, Sir John
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Baxter, A. B.
Dormer, P. W.
Holt, A. F.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Drewe, C.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Houghton, Douglas


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Bromwich)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Bettenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hoy, J. H.


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Benson, G.
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Black, C. W.
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Blackburn, F.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hurd, A. R.


Blenkinsop, A.
Erroll, F. J.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clarke(E'b'rgh W.)


Bossom, A. C.
Ewart, R.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Finlay, Graeme
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Bowen, E. R.
Fisher, Nigel
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Bowles, F. G.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Foot, M. M.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)
Fort, R.
Janner, B.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Gage, C. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Kaberry, D.


Bullard, D. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Keenan, W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gooch, E. G.
Kenyon, C.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Burden, F. F. A.
Cough, C. F. H.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Gower, H. R.
King, Dr. H. M.


Butcher, H. W.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lambton, Viscount


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Grey, C. F.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Cary, Sir Robert
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Leather, E. H. C.


Channon, H.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Chapman, W. D.
Grimond, J.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lindsay, Martin


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Linstead, H. N.


Cole, Norman
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)




Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Logan, D. G.
Osborne, C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)
Oswald, T.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Pannell, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Partridge, E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


McAdden, S. J.
Pearson, A
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Studholme, H. G.


Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Peto, Brig. C. H M.
Summers, G. S.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


McKibbin, A. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pitman, I. J.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Porter, G.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Maclean, Fitzray
Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


McLeavy, F.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thompson, Ll.-Cdr R (Croydon, W)


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Profumo, J. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N.


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Raikes, H. V.
Tilney, John


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Rayner, Brig. R
Touche, Sir Gordon


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Redmayne, M.
Turner, H. F. L


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Markham, Major S. F.
Remnant, Hon. P
Turton, R. H.


Marples, A. E.
Rhodes, H
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Richards, R.
Vane, W. M F.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Vaughan-Morgan. J K


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Viant, S. P


Maude, Angus
Robson-Brown, W.
Wade, D. W.


Maudling, R.
Roper, Sir Harold
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr S. L. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Ross, William
Ward, Hon George (Worcester)


Mellish, R. J.
Russell, R S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Mellor, Sir John
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Watkinson, H. A


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D
Webbe, Sir H (London &amp; Westminster)


Morley, R.
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Wellwood, W


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Scott, R. Donald
West, D. G.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Shepherd, William
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Simon, J. E S (Middlesbrough, w.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Moyle, A.
Slater, J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Nally, W.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Nicholls, Harmar
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Snow, J. W.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Soames, Capt. C
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Williams, W. R. (Droyisden)


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P J
Sparks, J. A.
Wills, G.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Nutting, Anthony
Speir, R. M.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Oakshott, H. D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Oliver, G. H
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Wyatt, W. L


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Steele, T.
Younger, Rt. Hon K


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Stevens, G. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Mr. Heath and Mr. Vosper.




NOES


Brockway, A. F. Burke, W. A.
Holman, P.
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Burke, W. A.
Hubbard, T. F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Clunie, J.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Williams, David (Neath)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Manuel, A. C.
Yates, V. F.


Fernyhough, E.
Padley, W. E.



For man, J. C.
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Glanville, James
Paton, J.
Mr. Carmichael and


Hamilton, W. W.
Pryde, D. J.
Mr. Emrys Hughes.


Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
Rankin, John

Amendment proposed: In line 11, leave out "£2,500," and insert "£5,000."—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Sir E. Keeling: This doubling of the maximum amount provided for Civil List pensions was announced by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House early in

the evening, after the discussion of my Amendment, the purpose of which it fulfils. Therefore, I should like to thank the Government for this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: In line 12, leave out "£40,000," and insert "£10,000."—[Mr. Emrys Hughes.]

Question put, "That '£40,000,' stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 313; Noes, 56.

Division No. 201.]
AYES
[10.25 p.m.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Fisher, Nigel
Linstead, H N.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lloyd, Maj Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon Selwyn (Wirral)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J
Foot, M. M.
Logan, D. G.


Ashton, H. (Cheimsford)
Fort, R.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Gage, C. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
McAdden, S. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.


Bacon, Miss Alice
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)


Baldwin, A. E.
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Mackeson, Brig H. R


Banks, Col. C.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
McKibbin, A. J.


Barlow, Sir John
Gooch, E. G.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Baxter, A. B.
Gough, C. F. H.
Maclean, Fitzroy


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Gower, H. R.
McLeavy, F.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Grey, C. F.
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)


Benson, G.
Grimond, J.
Maitland, Cmdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)


Black, C. W.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Markham, Major S. F.


Blackburn, F.
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Marples, A. E.


Bossom, A. C.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Bowen, E. R.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Maude, Angus


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maudling, R.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maydon, Lt -Comdr. S L C


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hay, John
Medlicott, Brig. F.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hayman, F. H.
Mellish, R. J.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Heath, Edward
Mellor, Sir John


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Monckton, Rt. Hon Sir Walter


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Bullard, D. G.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H, (Lewisham, S)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E


Burden, F. F. A.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
Moyle, A


Burton, Miss F. E.
Holt, A. F.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Butcher, H. W.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Nally, W.


Butler, Rt. Hon R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Houghton, Douglas
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Nicholls, Harmar


Cary, Sir Robert
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)


Channon, H.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)


Chapman, W. D.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Nield, Basil (Chester)


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Noble, Cmdr. A. H P


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Hurd, A. R.
Noei-Baker, Rt. Hon P. J.


Cole, Norman
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Colegate, W. A.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clarke(E'b'rgh W.)
Nutting, Anthony


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Oakshott, H. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Oliver, G. H.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon, W. D


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Janner, B.
Osborne, C.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Oswald, T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Partridge, E.


Deedes, W. F.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Pearson, A.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Peto, Brig. C, H. M


Donner, P. W.
Kaberry, D.
Peyton, J. W. W.


Drewe, G.
Keeling, Sir Edward
Pickthorn, K. W. M


Driberg, T. E. N.
Kenyon, C.
Pitman, I. J


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Powell, J Enoch


Dugdale, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir T.(Richmond)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Lambton, Viscount
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Profumo, J. D.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Leather, E. H. C.
Raikes, H. V.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Rayner, Brig. R.


Erroll, F. J.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Reid, Thomas (Swindon)


Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Rhodes, H.


Ewart, R.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Finlay, Graeme
Lindsay, Martin
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool S.)




Robson-Brown, W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Roper, Sir Harold
Stokes, Rt. Hon R R
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Strauss, Rt. Hon George (Vauxhall)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Russell, R. S.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Waterhouse, Capt Rt. Hon. C.


Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Stress, Dr. Barnett
Watkinson, H. A.


Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Studholme, H. G.
Wellwood, W.


Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Summers, G. S.
West, D. G


Scott, R. Donald
Sutcliffe, H.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Shepherd, William
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E)


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Slater, J.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N)


Smiles, Lt -Col. Sir Walter
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Tilney, John
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Snadden, W. McN
Touche, Sir Gordon
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Soames, Capt. C.
Turner, H. F. L.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Turner-Samuels, M.
Williams, W R. (Droylsden)


Sparks, J. A.
Turton, R. H.
Wills, G


Spearman, A. C. M
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Speir, R. M.
Vane, W. M. F.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K
Wyatt, W. L.


Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Viant, S. P.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K


Stevens, G. P.
Vosper, D. F.



Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Wade, D. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Major Conant and Mr. Redmayne




NOES


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Bence, C. R.
Holman, P.
Proctor, W. T.


Benn, Wedgwood
Hoy, J. H.
Pryde, D. J


Blenkinsop, A.
Hubbard, T. F.
Rankin, John


Boardman, H.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Brockway, A. F.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
King, Dr. H. M.
Ross, William


Burke, W. A.
Lindgren, G. S.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Chelwynd, G. R
McInnes, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Clunie, J.
MacMillan, M. K (Western Isles)
Sorensen, R. W


Cove, W. G.
Manual, A. C.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Morley, R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Daines, P
Crbach, M.
Timmons, J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Padley, W. E.
Wilkins, W. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, David (Neath)


Fernyhough, E
Pannell, Charles
Yates, V. F.


Forman, J. C.
Parker, J.



Glanville, James
Paton, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hamilton, W. W
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Mr. Carmichael and


Hannan, W.
Porter, G.
Mr. Emrys Hugbes

Amendment proposed: Leave out lines 20 and 21.—[Mr. Emrys Hughes.]

Mr. Michael Foot: On a point of order, Sir Charles. Can you inform the Committee whether it was your intention to call the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mrs. Cullen)—in line 19, leave out from "£6,000," to the end of line, and insert
'The provision to be made on marriage of a daughter or daughters shall be decided by Parliament.

It raises a point on which there was a division of opinion in the Select Committee and on which, it seems, the Committee should have an opportunity of coming to a decision.

The Chairman: That Amendment has not been selected.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 112.

Bullock, Capt. M.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Pitman, I. J.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Powell, J. Enoch


Burden, F. F. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Profumo, J. O.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Raikes, H. V.


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Channon, H.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Redmayne, M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Kaberry, D.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cole, Norman
Keeling, Sir Edward
Robson-Brown, W.


Colegate, W. A.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roper, Sir Harold


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lambton, Viscount
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, R. S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Leather, E. H. C.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Scott, R. Donald


Deedes, W. F.
Lindsay, Martin
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, William


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Donner, P. w.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Drewe, G.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Snaddon, W. McN.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
McAdden, S. J.
Soames, Capt. C.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
MacColl, J. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Speir, R. M.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Erroll, F. J.
McKibbin, A. J.
Stevens, G. P.


Finlay, Graeme
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fisher, Nigel
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fort, R.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Gage, C. H.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Studholme, H. G.


Galbraith, T. G. D (Hillhead)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Summers, G. S.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Markham, Major S. F.
Sutcliffe, H.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Marples, A. E.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Gower, H. R.
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maudling, R.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Grey, C. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Turner, H. F. L.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Grimond, J.
Mellish, R. J.
Turton, R. H.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mellor, Sir John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Waller
Vane, W. M. F.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Vaughan-Morgan, J.K.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Vosper, D. F.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon. N.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wade, D. W.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Moyle, A.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hay, John
Nicholls, Harmar
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Heath, Edward
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth. E.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hill, Or. Charles (Luton)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Watkinson, H. A.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon, P. J.
Wellwood, W.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent, G. R. H.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nutting, Anthony
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Holt, A. F.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Osborne, C.
Wills, G.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Partridge, E.
Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hurd, A. R.
Perkins, W. R. D.



Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Oakshott.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Awbery, S. S.
Bing, G. H. C.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bacon, Miss Alice
Blackburn, F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bence, C. R.
Blyton, W. R.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bonn, Wedgwood
Boardman, H.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Bowles, F. G.

Amendment proposed: Leave out lines 31 and 32. —[Mr. Attlee.]

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 231; Noes, 197.

Division No. 202.]
AYES
[10.37 p.m.


Alport, C. J. M.
Barlow, Sir John
Bowen, E. R.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Baxter, A. B.
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Beach, Maj. Hicks
Boyle, Sir Edward


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N. W.)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Brooman-White, R. C.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Black, C. W.
Browne, Jack (Govan)


Baldwin, A. E.
Blenkinsop, A.
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.


Banks, Col. C.
Bossom, A. C.
Bullard, D. G.




Bullock, Capt. M.
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.
Pitman, I. J.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Powell, J. Enoch


Burden, F. F. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Profumo, J. O.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Raikes, H. V.


Cary, Sir Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Channon, H.
Jones, A. (Hall Green)
Redmayne, M.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Kaberry, D.
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cole, Norman
Keeling, Sir Edward
Robson-Brown, W.


Colegate, W. A.
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)
Roper, Sir Harold


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lambton, Viscount
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Russell, R. S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Cranborne, Viscount
Leather, E. H. C.
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Scott, R. Donald


Deedes, W. F.
Lindsay, Martin
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Digby, S. Wingfield
Linstead, H. N.
Shepherd, William


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter


Donner, P. w.
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S.W.)
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Drewe, G.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Snaddon, W. McN.


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
McAdden, S. J.
Soames, Capt. C.


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
MacColl, J. E.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Speir, R. M.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Erroll, F. J.
McKibbin, A. J.
Stevens, G. P.


Finlay, Graeme
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)


Fisher, Nigel
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maclean, Fitzroy
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Fort, R.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Gage, C. H.
Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Studholme, H. G.


Galbraith, T. G. D (Hillhead)
Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Summers, G. S.


George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Markham, Major S. F.
Sutcliffe, H.


Glyn, Sir Ralph
Marples, A. E.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Gower, H. R.
Maude, Angus
Tilney, John


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maudling, R.
Touche, Sir Gordon


Grey, C. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Turner, H. F. L.


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Grimond, J.
Mellish, R. J.
Turton, R. H.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mellor, Sir John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Waller
Vane, W. M. F.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Vaughan-Morgan, J.K.


Hare, Hon. J. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Vosper, D. F.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon. N.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Wade, D. W.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Moyle, A.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Hay, John
Nicholls, Harmar
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Heath, Edward
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth. E.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Hill, Or. Charles (Luton)
Nield, Basil (Chester)
Watkinson, H. A.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon, P. J.
Wellwood, W.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent, G. R. H.
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Nutting, Anthony
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Holt, A. F.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Howard, Greville (St. Ives)
Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Osborne, C.
Wills, G.


Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
Partridge, E.
Wilson Geoffrey (Truro)


Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hurd, A. R.
Perkins, W. R. D.



Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Mr. Butcher and Mr. Oakshott.


Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Awbery, S. S.
Bing, G. H. C.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Bacon, Miss Alice
Blackburn, F.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Bence, C. R.
Blyton, W. R.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Bonn, Wedgwood
Boardman, H.


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Bowles, F. G.




Brockway, A. F.
Hayman, F. H.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Herbison, Miss M.
Poole, C. C.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Holman, P.
Porter, G.


Burke, W. A.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hoy, J. H.
Pryde, D. J.


Carmichael, J.
Hubbard, T. F.
Rankin, John


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rhodes, H.


Clunie, J.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Collick, P. H.
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)
Ross, William


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Royle, C.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Keenan, W.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Dairies, P.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
King, Dr. H. M.
Sorensen, R. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Sparks, J. A.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steele, T.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Delargy, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stross, Dr. Barnett


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
McInnes, J.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Ewart, R.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Timmons, J.


Foot, M. M.
Manuel, A. C.
Viant, S. P.


For man, J. C.
Morley, R.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Nally, W.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Gibson, C. W.
Orbach, M.
Williams, David (Neath)


Glanville, James
Oswald, T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Gooch, E. G.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Panned, Charles
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hamilton, W. W.
Parker, J.



Hannan, W.
Paton, J.





TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Emrys Hughes and Mr. Yates.

Division No. 203.]
AYES
[10.48 pm.


Alport, C. J. M.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Ashton, H. (Chelmsford)
Deedes, W. F.
Holmes, Sir Stanley (Harwich)


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Holt, A. F.


Astor, Hon. J. J. (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Bucks, Wycombe)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Howard, Greville (St. Ives)


Baldwin, A. E.
Donner, P. W.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Banks, Col. C.
Drewe, C.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hulbert, Wing Cmdr. N. J.


Baxter, A. B.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Hurd, A. R.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Eccles, Rt. Hon. D. M.
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Erroll, F. J.
Hutchison, James (Scotstoun)


Bennett, F. M. (Reading, N.)
Finlay, Graeme
Hyde, Lt.-Col. H. M.


Black, C. W.
Fisher, Nigel
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Bossom, A. C.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bowen, E. R.
Fort, R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe &amp; Lonsdale)
Jones, A. (Hall Green)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gage, C. H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Cdr. G. (Bristol, N.W.)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)
Kaberry, D.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Keeling, Sir Edward


Brooman-White, R. C.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)


Browne, Jack (Govan)
Glyn, Sir Ralph
Lambton, Viscount


Bullard, D. G.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gough, C. F. H.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Gower, H. R.
Leather, E. H. C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Legh, P. R. (Petersfield)


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Cary, Sir Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Lindsay, Martin


Channon, H.
Hare, Hon. J. H.
Linstead, H. N.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Cole, Norman
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Longden, Gilbert (Herts, S. W.)


Colegate, W. A.
Hay, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Heath, Edward
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
McAdden, S. J.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.




Macdonald, Sir Peter (I. of Wight)
Partridge, E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


McKibbin, A. J.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Peyton, J. W. W.
Studholme, H. G.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Summers, G. S.


Maclean, Fitzroy
Pitman, I. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Macpherson, Maj. Niall (Dumfries)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Profumo, J. D.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C. N.


Maitland, Patrick (Lanark)
Raikes, H. V.
Tilney, John


Markham, Major S. F.
Rayner, Brig. R.
Touche, Sir Gerald


Marplot, A. E.
Redmayne, M.
Turner, H. F. L.


Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Turton, R. H.


Marshall, Sir Sidney (Sutton)
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Maude, Angus
Robson-Brown, W.
Vane, W. M. F.


Maudling, R.
Roper, Sir Harold
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Vosper, D. F.


Medlicott, Brig. F.
Russell, R. S.
Wade, D. W.


Mellor, Sir John
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Walker-Smith, D. C.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Schofield, Lt.-Col. W. (Rochdale)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Scott, R. Donald
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Watkinson, H. A.


Nicholls, Harmar
Shepherd, William
Webbe, Sir H. (London &amp; Westminster)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wellwood, W.


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth. E.)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir Waller
White, Baker (Canterbury)


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Noble, Cmdr. A. H. P.
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Snadden, W. McN.
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Nutting, Anthony
Soames, Capt. C.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Oakshott, H. D.
Spearman, A. C. M.
Wills, G.


O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Antrim, N.)
Speir, R. M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)



Orr-Ewing, Chares Ian (Hendon, N.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)
Stevens, G. P.
Mr. Buchan-Hepburn and


Osborne, C.
Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)
Mr. Butcher.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Adams, Richard
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Delargy, H. J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Anderson, Alexander (Motherwell)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Janner, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John (W. Bromwich)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Jenkins, R. H. (Stechford)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon F. J.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Bence, C. R.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Keenan, W.


Benn, Wedgwood
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Kenyon, C.


Benson, G.
Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Ewart, R.
King, Dr. H. M.


Bing, G. H. C.
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Blackburn, F.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E.)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Blenkinsop, A.
Foot, M. M.
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)


Blyton, W. R.
Forman, J. C.
Lindgren, G. S.


Boardman, H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Logan, D. G.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
MacColl, J. E.


Bowles, F. G.
Gibson, C. W.
McInnes, J.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Glanville, James
McLeavy, F.


Brockway, A. F.
Gooch, E. G.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Gordon-Walker, Rt. Hon P. C.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendal)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, A. C.


Burke, W. A.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Grimond, J.
Mellish, R. J.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, S.)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Mitchison, G. R


Callaghan, L. J.
Hall, John (Gateshead, W.)
Morley, R.


Carmichael, J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hannan, W.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hastings, S.
Mort, D. L.


Clunie, J.
Hayman, F. H.
Moyle, A.


Cooks, F. S.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Rowley Regis)
Nally, W.


Coldrick, W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Collick, P. H.
Holman, P.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.


Cove, W. G.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Oliver, G. H.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Houghton, Douglas
Orbach, M.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hoy, J. H.
Oswald, T.


Daines, P.
Hubbard, T. F.
Padley, W. E.


Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)




Pannell, Charles
Schofield, S. (Barnsley)
Turner-Samuels, M.


Pargiter, G. A.
Shackieton, E. A. A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Parker, J.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)
Viant, S. P.


Paton, J.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Wallace, H. W.


Pearson, A.
Slater, J.
West, D. G.


Peart, T. F.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Poole, C. C.
Snow, J. W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Popplewell, E.
Sorensen, R. w.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Porter, G.
Soskice, fit. Hon. Sir Frank
Wigg, George


Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Sparks, J. A.
Willey, Frederick (Sunderland, N.)


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Steele, T.
Williams, David (Neath)


Proctor, W. T.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)


Pryde, D. J.
Stokes, Rt. Hon. R. R.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Rankin, John
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Reid, Thomas (Swindon)
Stross, Dr. Barnett
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Reid, William (Camlachie)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wyatt, W. L.


Richards, R.
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Yates, V. F.


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Thomas, David (Aberdare)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)



Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ross, William
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)
Mr. Wilkins and


Royle, C.
Timmons, J.
Mr. Kenneth Robinson


Question put accordingly, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That there be charged on the Consolidated Fund as from the last demise of the Crown the following annual sums (subject to adjustment in respect of parts of a year):
For the Queen's Civil List: £475,000;
For retired allowances: such sums as may be required for the payment of retired allowances granted by Her Majesty or by His late Majesty to or in respect of persons who have been members of the Royal Household;
For Civil List pensions: such sums as may be required for the payment in each year of Civil List pensions already granted and Civil List pensions hereafter to be granted, so, however, that the aggregate of the pensions granted in any financial year shall not exceed £5,000 a year;
For His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh: £40,000, in substitution for any sum payable to him under the Princess Elizabeth's and Duke of Edinburgh's Annuities Act, 1948;
For the benefit of the children of Her Majesty, other than the Duke of Cornwall for the time being: in respect of each son who attains the age of twenty-one years or marries, £10,000, and in the case of a son who marries a further £15,000; and in respect of each daughter who attains the age of twenty-one years or marries, £6,000, and in case of a daughter who marries a further £9,000;
For Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret: £9,000 in the event of her

marriage, in addition to any sum payable to her under section six of the Civil List Act, 1937;
In the event of the death during the present reign of the Duke of Cornwall for the time being leaving a widow, for his widow, £30,000;
and that provision be made for continuing for a period of six months after the close of the present reign certain payments charged as aforesaid upon the Consolidated Fund which would otherwise then be determined:
Provided that—

(i) as respects any period during which the Duke of Cornwall for the time being is a minor, the sum of £475,000 for the Queen's Civil List shall be subject to a reduction of an amount equal to the net revenues of the Duchy for the year, less—

(a) for each year whilst he is under the age of eighteen years, one ninth of those revenues,
(b) for each of the last three years of his minority, £30,000;
(ii) as respects any period during which the Duchy of Cornwall is vested in Her Majesty, the said sum of £475,000 shall be subject to a reduction of an amount equal to the net revenues of the Duchy for the year.

Resolved,
That it is expedient to repeal section five of the Civil List Act. 1937, and to make other amendments in the law relating to the Civil List, the hereditary revenues, the Duchy of Cornwall, and Grants for the Royal Family.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.

MOTOR VEHICLES (INTERNATIONAL CIRCULATION) BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered.

Clause 1.—(ORDERS IN COUNCIL FOR FACILITATING INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC.)

11.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 19 to 23.
In moving this Amendment, it is my duty to inform the House that when this Bill was being considered in Committee at 12.45 a.m., on 27th June, there occurred what has been known in another context as "a regrettable incident." An Amendment was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), to which I offered certain objections. When the time came for the Question to be put it was found that the hearts and voices of the Committee were imperfectly attuned.
In support of that statement, I recall and quote three reliable witnesses, commencing with the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), who used these words:
It is unlikely that one could introduce such a scheme whereby people coming here were forced to pass a driving test in their own country. It would be very difficult to insist on their knowing the Highway Code. At the same time, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) was right to put the Amendment on the Paper in the hope of extracting some sort of assurance from the Minister.…
That, I think, can be taken by the House to mean that the hon. Gentleman was describing the Amendment as exploratory in its nature.
My next witness is even more impressive. He is the occupant of the Chair at the time who, after the voices had been collected, said:
It was a mistake on my part.
And lastly there is the hon. and learned Member for Northampton himself. A little later in our proceedings he said:
We have had this joke; we have had this fun.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2612, 2643–4.]
That was certainly the case in the small hours of the morning. I will not

detain the House now by repeating the arguments which I adduced in the Committee when resisting the proviso, but hon. Gentlemen who have studied the proceedings will have noticed that later when we came to the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," I gave an undertaking, which will be found in c. 2658–9 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, on the subject of the Highway Code to the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg), who was anxious that it might be made available to foreigners entering this country who were intending to drive a motor vehicle.
Since then I have done a little research. While, of course, adhering to that undertaking, I was gratified to find, as I am sure hon. Members will be, that it is already the practice of the motoring organisations in this country to distribute copies of the Highway Code to visiting drivers from abroad. I hope that with these few words I am justified in asking the House to reverse the decision of the Committee by deleting these words.

Mr. George Wigg: I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary was quite accurate when he said that the reason for these words being included in the Bill was because the hearts and the voices of the Committee were not in tune. I think that their brains had got something to do with it as well. The circumstances as I recollect them were that we were having a pleasant and harmonious debate and, as always, we on this side of the House were seeking assurances from the Government, which were a matter of vital concern if motor drivers from the Continent were to be let loose upon our roads, when along came the Patronage Secretary to move "That the Question be now put" without our having an opportunity to get a satisfactory assurance from the Government.
We now find that that assurance could have been readily given had the Government known what was going on in the responsible Department. But, after all, that is not an unusual occurrence. We have the clearest evidence that the Government do not know in what direction to go, the road that they want to take or, indeed, what is happening.
We have had a frank admission from the Minister—perhaps not as frank as


we should like—and we do not want to make heavy weather about it. I, for my part, now that we know the facts, regard this episode from the point of view that we can be satisfied that our efforts were not in vain, for, I think, we have taught the Minister what is going on in his Department.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I do not wish to take up the time of the House more than a minute or so, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, there was rather a "snafu" the other night. As a result, our Amendment was carried, to the surprise of the Committee. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, if it had not been for the sudden intervention of the Patronage Secretary, this situation would not have arisen.
He had not been present during the debate, he came in and moved the Closure, and the Question was then put. Much to everyone's surprise, a verdict was given, in which the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary was flouted. The Parliamentary Secretary now comes and asks us to reverse the decision taken that night.
If there had not been the intervention by the Patronage Secretary, fuller and more careful consideration could have been given to the serious discussion we were having, and the Parliamentary Secretary would have been able to give us the assurances he has since found it possible to give. I should like to be assured further, in respect of the action which he now proposes to take, that all foreign tourists coming to this country with the intention of driving cars here will be not only provided with the Highway Code, but provided with it in the better-known languages.
A large number of tourists who come here will not be in a position fully to understand and quickly to familiarise themselves with the Highway Code if it is presented to them only in English. It is not only those tourists who come here, with their own cars, who should be provided with the Highway Code, but also those who hire cars here for the purpose of driving themselves. There must be a stage where every tourist who is driving a car in this country has to produce evidence that he is allowed to drive in his own country before he is permitted to do

so here. At that stage, he should be presented with the Highway Code.
There was one other point, which we discussed the other night during the Committee stage. It was with regard to military drivers for the N.A.T.O. forces who drive here. I do feel we need a little more assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary about this. He referred that night to a Bill, which is now in another place, and which makes provision for the way in which drivers, who commit offences while driving for foreign forces in this country, will be tried in their own courts.
If they are not subject to British law, as they will not be in that case, there is the possibility that there will be occasions when their own courts will not punish them in the same way as they would have been punished in the English courts. We could get cases where these drivers were permitted to drive on British roads after having committed an offence for which British drivers would have been prevented from driving further. In looking at the Bill which is in another place, I do not think it necessarily fully satisfies us. It seems that if these drivers are on duty they will be subject to their own courts and that it will be possible for them to continue driving after committing an offence for which, if they were tried in the English courts, their licences would be suspended.
I refer to these two points to ensure that the Parliamentary Secretary keeps them in mind when he is endeavouring to fulfil the terms of the Amendment we put down and on which he has given us certain assurances. It is unfortunate that we were not able to stress this point the other night because of the intervention of the Patronage Secretary, but we have been able to do so tonight.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[Mr. Braithwaite.]

11.10.p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: I, in common with many of my hon. Friends, hoped that perhaps we should not be unduly detained on this matter, but as we are in the extraordinary position in which hon. Members on this side of the House who happened to have carried in Committee an Amendment which was standing in their names are not to be allowed to speak on the matter we must seek to deal with the matter on Third Reading, perhaps in rather more detail.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman is now addressing himself to a decision come to by the House, "That the Question be now put." He must now confine himself to the Bill.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, we have just been discussing on the Report stage an Amendment which was equally a criticism of a decision come to by the House when in Committee. There can be no doubt in anybody's mind that every hon. Member in the Committee then called "Aye" on that occasion. But I shall not pursue that aspect of the matter any further.
The passage of these Measures would be greatly facilitated if we did not have such frequent interventions by the Patronage Secretary. The speed with which we get through business is due to the debate being conducted by those who know what they are talking about, and not being—

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing about this in the Bill. We are now on the Third Reading of the Bill, and the hon. and learned Member should stick to that.

Mr. George Wigg: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, surely my hon. and learned Friend is within the rules of order if he seeks to explain to the House why he has to speak at greater length than he otherwise would do, just as, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, I shall have to explain why I am speaking when I should otherwise not have spoken.

Mr. Speaker: I do not see how that can be in order on Third Reading.

Mr. Bing: I think we can agree in congratulating the Parliamentary Secretary that he has not got his Minister with

him tonight, because when the Minister spoke he quite clearly misinterpreted the purpose of the Bill, and it is important that we should not allow this Bill to go out from this House with any false impression in the country about what it will do. The Minister, after a passing reference to Franco Spain, said that the object of the Bill was to facilitate the transport here and the opportunities of driving here of various foreigners, on whom not only our economic survival but our military security alike depended. You would very rightly rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, if I were to discuss, as did the Minister, the military value of these allies in whom the right hon. Gentleman places such trust.
I think it is appropriate, however, to call attention to the fact that Spain is not a party to this agreement. If the Parliamentary Secretary cares to look at the United Nations' Convention on Road Traffic, which it is the object of this Bill to implement, he will see that, although a great many nations are party to it, very properly and rightly Spain is excluded. The view is taken that persons who come from Franco Spain ought not to be trusted even with a driving licence in this country. I endorse that point of view; I think it is right that this Bill should not be for the purpose of implementing an agreement which would enable anyone from Franco Spain to come here.
I am only sorry that the Minister, who was under such a delusion about the nature of the Bill, is not here to deal with this aspect. We must all regard it as rather unfortunate that the only reason the Minister saw fit to give for the introduction of the Measure was one which does not apply to it at all.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? I understand we are now on Third Reading. There is no mention of this stage on the Order Paper. Can you explain how we have reached this stage without notice having been given to hon. Members?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite in order. The Third Reading of a Bill can be taken as soon as the Report stage is completed.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Further to that point of order. Surely it is in accordance with the traditions of


the House that some indication should be given to hon. Members if it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Third Reading of a Bill immediately after Report stage, particularly when there are Amendments put down by the Government to amend the Bill as it has been passed by the Committee?

Mr. Speaker: The Third Reading of a Bill of this kind can be taken immediately after the Report stage, and I recall on Thursday last that it was announced that the Third Reading would be taken immediately after Report stage.

Mr. Benn: Although I very well understand that the Leader of the House may have said that the Third Reading would be taken that is only an informal notification, and hon. Members go by the Order Paper. I was not questioning the right of the House to take the Third Reading after the Report stage, but surely hon. Members should be notified?

Mr. Speaker: It is not necessary. The Report stage must be concluded before the Third Reading can be taken, and the motion for the Third Reading was made quite properly from the Treasury Bench. Has the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) concluded his speech?

Mr. Bing: No, Sir. I am sorry I was interrupted, but perhaps it enables me to say that possibly the Minister of Transport was under the same delusion as my hon. Friend with regard to the procedural point, and the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is not present to speak on Third Reading of his Bill may be due to the fact that he was under the impression that Third Reading would not be taken tonight.
That is not surprising, as we know from the way business is arranged that many hon. Gentlemen opposite have no idea what the business is, and very often they vote the wrong way. After making that excuse for the absence of the Minister may I deal with one or two points with which I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will deal?
First, will he outline to us how this Bill is going to affect the position about which we are most worried—that of the person who receives a licence to drive from some outside authority in respect

of whom, as far as I can see, this Bill makes no provision. I hope he will tell us how far it affects military permits. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) raised this question at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
How far are we to be in a position to disqualify here someone who has committed an offence and has been convicted by a court for perhaps a serious driving offence? Or are any military authorities in a position to issue a licence to someone who has been disqualified, perhaps by our courts, or the French courts, or by the courts in every country where a man has been stationed?
The Minister of Transport said that the object of the Bill was to welcome guests from Franco Spain. That may or may not be so, but it is not an answer to my serious question. What is the position with regard to visiting forces? All the explanation we have had so far is that the matter is to be dealt with in another Bill. But there are references to the subject in this Bill, and for that reason we are entitled to know what the references in this Bill mean. What are to be the regulations? What are the possibilities? Or are the suggestions flung out in this Bill merely preparing the way for some further Measure at a later stage?
I hope that on a Measure of this sort the House is not going to dismiss lightly a question of this sort, and that we are to have some consideration and discussion of it. It would be unfortunate to give the Bill a Third Reading without some explanation from the Minister, who has had all the time since Second Reading to offer some explanation of the purpose of the Measure.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: I took part in the discussion which led to the issue which has just been disposed of. According to the Government, this Bill includes an undertaking given by them that the views which hon. Members on this side of the House expressed on that occasion would be carefully considered. I appreciate that the words which gave rise to that undertaking have now been removed from the Bill, and you would probably rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, if I discussed them now.
I pointed out at the time, however, that the undertaking was given by the Parlia-


mentary Secretary, and when the Minister was present later I explicitly asked him whether the undertaking remained good and whether the regulations would require foreign motorists coming to this country to show that they were aware of all the rules that are laid down for English drivers; whether, for example, the movements of the hand of an English driver indicating what he intended to do were understood by foreign drivers, and whether they were qualified, when they got this international licence, to meet the dangers of the road in the same way as English drivers are supposed to be.
I was assured by the Minister himself. He said:
I should hope to be as good and fair as my hon. Friend"—
that is, the Parliamentary Secretary—
He undertook that all the points raised would be given serious consideration, and in saying that he was speaking on behalf of himself and on my behalf."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th June, 1952; Vol. 502, c. 2656.]
I do not know whether the serious consideration has led to a flat rejection of the proposal that the regulations when prepared by the Minister should draw the attention of motorists to these points to which I referred. I should like to know whether under this Bill the points that I raised in the Committee stage are fully covered. After the deletion of lines 19 to 23 from the Bill, I am not very clea—perhaps I can be told—of the extent to which this undertaking of the Minister is to be carried out.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I would not have spoken on the Third Reading if it were not for the fact that I hoped to have an opportunity, either on Report or in the Committee stage, of saying a word about the provisions of the Highway Code in so far as they affect this subject. It had not occurred to me that the Patronage Secretary would move the Closure within about a quarter of an hour of our discussion of the Parliamentary Secretary's Amendment. I must, therefore, make my views clear at this stage.
I am opposed to the Bill, because the Parliamentary Secretary's assurances were not at all satisfactory. The present position leaves a great deal to be desired. I regret very much that the Government moved the Amendment for the deletion

of the important proviso that was inserted in the Committee stage. I appreciate that I cannot deal on Third Reading with anything that is not in the Bill. That is a difficulty that confronts Members when the Third Reading is taken immediately after the Report stage, and there has been no opportunity for the Government to reprint a Bill for consideration of the House on Third Reading. The printed document must be dealt with as it is found.
There is at the moment no satisfactory assurance with regard to the Highway Code. That is a matter of public importance. To my knowledge, foreigners coming to this country to drive cars are ignorant of the Highway Code; they are not familiar with our system of signals and signs. I have recently come across two visitors to this country who did not know the significance of the zebra crossing. We are all familiar with these crossings, but it cannot be wondered at that foreigners do not understand their significance and are, therefore, inclined to ignore them.

Mr. Speaker: This Bill, on Third Reading, permits of a very limited discussion. It provides for the making of Orders in Council to facilitate the circulation of international motor traffic. It does not lay down what is to be in those Orders in Council; there is the ordinary Statutory Instrument procedure laid down for that. I do not think the hon. Gentleman can go into detail on what may or may not be in the Statutory Instrument.

Mr. Bing: On a point of order. As I understood it, my hon. Friend's argument was addressed to the fact that now we have deleted from the Bill any reference to the need to understand the Highway Code, this Bill as a whole is unsatisfactory, because it will enable the Minister of Transport to permit foreigners who are quite ignorant of these matters to drive motor cars in this country. He was saying that such was the ignorance of people who came front abroad on these matters that really this Bill should not be allowed to pass in its present form, because it would permit such persons to come here and drive motor cars.

Mr. Speaker: I gathered that was the gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but, ex hypothesi, if the Highway Code has been deleted from the Bill it is no


longer in the Bill and is, therefore, not a relevant matter for Third Reading.

Mr. Fletcher: This Bill is designed to give Her Majesty, by Order in Council, power to make provision, broadly speaking, to enable foreigners to come here and drive motor cars. I am opposed to the Bill, because I think it wrong to give Her Majesty power to make provisions of that kind by Order in Council, until we have satisfactory assurances that no such Order will be made under this Bill which permits any foreigner to drive any car in this country unless there are effective steps taken to see that such a foreigner not merely has a copy of the Highway Code supplied to him by some motoring organisation but is familiar with the contents of it and has signed a declaration to that effect.
My argument is addressed to that point because I believe that further assurances for the protection and the safety of the public are required from the Government before this House should give a Third Reading to the Bill. With great respect, I submit that an argument on that line is perfectly relevant and within the terms of order on Third Reading, and it is precisely on that limited point that I am hoping, before the House finishes with the Bill—and I hope we shall not have any further interventions from the Patronage Secretary, because this is a matter of some public importance—that we shall have satisfactory assurances.
I hope we shall have a clear and explicit undertaking from the Minister that, if the House allows the Bill to pass, giving the Government power to make Orders in Council, care will be taken to ensure that no Order in Council is made under the Bill which does not specifically require that any foreigner, coming to these shores with a motor car and with permission to drive here, is not merely licensed to drive in his own country, but is effectively insured against third party risks with a company which can be called upon to pay any damages that may be payable in this country.
Further, we should like that such a person coming here will have to give an undertaking that he has read the Highway Code and, is familiar with it. I believe that nothing less than that is sufficient to protect the public against risks from people not familiar with the some-

what complicated transport and traffic regulations of this country, which, of course, vary from time to time.
There is no reason why a foreigner should be criticised if he does not understand them. It is our duty to make the provisions clear to people who come here. Therefore, I hope that we shall have a clear undertaking from the Minister on that point.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I hope that it will be in order to refer briefly to what I understand to be the purpose of this Bill as it has reached the House at this stage, and that is that Her Majesty may make provision—and here I will quote the actual words—
for modifying in relation to vehicles brought temporarily into Great Britain by persons resident outside the United Kingdom, and in relation to persons so resident who are temporarily in Great Britain, any enactment relating to vehicles or the drivers of vehicles.
That, in effect, means that the Minister of Transport is in a position to set aside any legislation that this House has passed relating to the regulation of motor traffic on the roads, the type of traffic safety precautions covering the use of that traffic, and also the regulations which this House and successive Governments in their wisdom may think it necessary to impose to maintain reasonable standards of road safety.
What we ought to have on this Bill by this stage, and what we have not yet had, is an idea from the Minister of the use which he intends to make of the powers that we are giving him under this Bill. If I were not so much in sympathy with the objects of the Bill, I might feel considerable alarm because of the power which is given to the Minister to set aside all the legislation that this House has passed.
What we must all be concerned with is the question of road safety. Only the other day this House passed a Motion without a Division relating to road safety and it is a matter of concern to all sides of the House. It is a question which we from time to time debate. Obviously, if we are to allow foreigners to come into this country with motor cars, under a Convention which we are going to sign on the international circulation of motor


vehicles, there must surely be some guarantee that these motorists are familiar with our normal customs on the road.
Anyone looking at the Highway Code will see that one ought to know, for example, what is to happen when a whip is held straight up; and what will happen when it circles round—[An HON. MEMBER: "Like the Whips in this House"]. My hon. Friend took the words out of my mouth, but what I want to say next is that if I were a foreign visitor, trying to understand our Highway Code, I would not study the behaviour of the Whips in this House.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing in the Bill about the Whips in this House.

Mr. Benn: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I am expressing concern and doubt because I think that it is wrong for us to pass an enabling Measure as wide as this Bill unless we know what assurances the Minister is to give.
I would ask what use the Minister is going to make of the wide powers he is taking; for, let it be remembered, he is setting aside regulations made under the Road Traffic Act of 1930. We are here concerned with the arriving and stationing in this country of North Atlantic Treaty Forces. We have to be conmerned with road safety precautions that will have to be taken as regard visiting forces, or tourists.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will at least have a skeleton available of the type of Orders in Council that he proposes to devise. Otherwise, he is asking for a blank cheque, with no guarantee that these Orders will be in the interests of, and for the convenience of, other users of the roads. The Parliamentary Secretary has treated us with courtesy and kindness throughout the earlier stages of this Bill, and in that spirit I hope that he will give the House tonight some indications of its intentions.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Wigg: I was somewhat surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) expressed concern about the Patronage Secretary again descending upon us because, whatever one may say about bulls in china shops, it is no use being fearful until he arrives.
I ventured on an earlier stage of the Bill to say that the emergence of the Patronage Secretary had secured copies of the Highway Code for foreigners which they might not want; that he might provide free sets of tyres and, if the discussion went on long enough, even free motor cars. Hon. Members opposite have often spoken about foreigners obtaining free sets of teeth, and whether it be free teeth or free motor cars, somebody would have something for which to thank the Patronage Secretary.
The provision about the Highway Code is now removed from the Bill. The motoring organisations are to provide copies of the Highway Code which the Government will not provide. I understand that discussion on this stage of the Bill is extremely limited; although not so limited as our discussion on the Report stage, when there was none at all, and my difficulty is that, ordinarily, I should be in favour of this Bill. But, it does something which I have always understood the Conservative Party does not like—government by delegated powers. We have often heard complaints from these benches about the great powers being given to Ministers and what control the House has got. It boils down to what we think about the Minister. In the ordinary way, a modest Bill of this kind—

Mr. J. Hudson: On a point of order. I put a question to you, Sir, about what was in the Bill concerning the commitments made by the Minister. Can you invite the Minister himself, as he is now in the Chamber, to instruct you, as well as the House, upon the point about which difficulty now arises because of the exclusion of the lines that were referred to in the debate on the Report stage of the Bill?
I put it to you, Sir, that there was a most explicit commitment by the Minister concerning this matter. He has now come into the House. It is a most curious procedure. First we have the Patronage Secretary drifting in and moving the Closure and then drifting out; and then the Minister drifts in—I see that he has now gone out again. What is to be done?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot understand exactly what the hon. Member wants me to do. There will be an opportunity for the Minister in charge of the Bill to speak, if he wishes to do so.

Mr. Wigg: I was referring to the very wide powers the Government have taken to implement what I think, in ordinary circumstances, would be a useful Bill. Even though the words which we put in in Committee have been knocked out, this is still a Bill which, in ordinary circumstances, would command my approval.
What kind of a mess will the Government make of it? We have had that curious statement that they did not know who were the people who would benefit; who would retain driving licences under this Bill, and who would get copies of the Highway Code. We ought to know from the Government exactly what they propose to do when they take these powers.
I am alarmed at this Government undertaking any action in connection with our transport. If the Government does not know who supplies the copies of the Highway Code and who will get them, what will they do on the Transport Bill? I must not pursue that argument or I should be out of order, but it does justify me in thinking that before we vote on this Measure we ought to have the clearest understanding.
I hope that we shall have a firm undertaking from the Government of what they propose to do if the House decides to give them these powers. Although I support the Measure, I have no confidence in the Government, and if the House decides to go to a Division I shall, reluctantly, have to cast my vote against this Measure.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I shall not delay the House, because we had our discussion on this on the Second Reading, and Report and Committee stages. In spite of the intervention of the Patronage Secretary, we did make our position clear.
We said that we welcomed this Bill in as much as it assisted the tourist trade of this country, and removed some of the

petty annoyances with which tourists were inconvenienced. At the same time, we have been pressing the Parliamentary Secretary to give us certain assurances, and he has given us some of those assurances. He did try to meet us in certain particulars. The Minister himself was not anywhere near as helpful and introduced some very irrelevant matters.
But we still think it necessary, when the Orders in Council which the Bill provides shall be laid before the House are laid, that we should question the Parliamentary Secretary very closely so as to make sure that the assurances he has given us in good faith are being carried out. We are very much concerned about road safety. We are concerned lest when foreign drivers come here they are unfamiliar with the Highway Code, and do not abide by the rules and regulations which we make in an effort to protect the lives of those who use the roads.
We wish to be assured that ample provision will be made to ensure that the foreign driver will be as safe on the road—and no greater danger to other users of the road—as British drivers. We have no intention of dividing against the Bill, but look forward to the Statutory Orders, and to receiving further assurances when they are discussed in the House.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Braithwaite: I took careful notes of the points raised by hon. Gentlemen opposite with a view to replying to them in some detail, but in view of this attempt to count out a Measure aimed at securing international amity I do not propose to make any further reply.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.

MARINE AND AVIATION INSURANCE (WAR RISKS) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees). [Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for authorising the Minister of Transport to undertake the insurance of ships, aircraft and certain other goods against war risks and, in certain circumstances, other risks, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament, or the issue out of the Consolidated Fund, of the amount by which, at any time when a payment falls to be made out of the fund established under the said Act, the sum standing to the credit of the fund so established is less than the sum required for the making of that payment; and
(b) for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses incurred for the purposes of the said Act by the Minister of Transport, except in so far as they are required to be defrayed out of the fund so established.—[Mr. Braithwaite.]

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: There is one point which I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to answer. In paragraph (b) of this Resolution we read,
for the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of the expenses incurred for the purpose of the said Act by the Minister of Transport, except in so far as they are required to be defrayed out of the fund so established.
I have searched hard to find out where it is laid down, in the Bill or in this Resolution, how the money is to be allocated between moneys to be carried on the Ministry Vote and moneys to be defrayed out of the fund so established. I can find no reference to a rule, regulation or principle governing the allocation of these expenses. It seems to me that this fund ought to be regarded as a commercial concern and that Parliament ought not to be required to pay out money for the financial cost of administration; that the fund itself ought to carry this. We are being asked to pass this Resolution and accept financial liability on ourselves without knowing on what principle that liability will fall upon us.
I wish also to ask whether the Minister can tell us what check the House of Commons will have on the circumstances which might arise when the sum standing in the fund is not sufficient to meet the demands made upon it. I can well understand that with an insurance fund as risky as this it is not always possible to be sure that there will be enough in the fund to meet the demand. But it is unsatisfactory that we should be asked to make provision and then be told that if there is not enough in the fund then it will be met in some other way. Obviously, the Minister will have a great deal of experience that he can delve into—

The Deputy-Chairman: It seems to me that the hon. Member is raising matters that can be raised on the Bill. The Money Resolution is wide enough for all the machinery to be dealt with when the Bill is discussed. These matters can then be raised.

Mr. Benn: I should like to be advised on this point. Paragraph (a) of the Resolution asks this Committee at this stage to vote money in one of two ways—either by Parliamentary grant or, in certain circumstances, in another way. I should have thought that when we were considering the financial aspect of this matter we could rightly have an answer to the question: on what principle is the money to come sometimes this way and sometimes in another way? I confine myself to this narrow point. I am grateful to the Chair for pointing out how difficult it is to remain in order and still speak on this subject.
This provision has been working in previous legislation for something like 30 years now, and the Minister no doubt can tell us from his own experience of the way the fund works on what principle the money has been allocated as between the two sources of supply since the 1939 Act.
I should like the Minister to answer the two questions. The first is what governs the payment of expenses for the administration of the fund. It says that there are some regulations. I should like to know where they are. The second question is what principle governs the allocation of demands on the fund as between the Parliamentary Vote and the money from the Consolidated Fund.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): We have rightly been reminded that this is not the occasion for discussing some of the wider issues of this matter. On Second Reading we touched upon the main financial structure, and we are to have the pleasure of the company of the hon. Gentleman for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) on the Standing Committee which will examine the Bill in detail. Therefore, if I briefly inform the Committee of the purpose of the Money Resolution in its narrowest sense I think that I shall be discharging the duty laid upon me at this stage.
The necessity for this Resolution arises from Clause 5 (2) and Clause 9 of the Bill. Clause 5 (2) provides that if and so far as the fund to be established out out insurance premiums may prove insufficient to meet liabilities the deficiency shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament or out of the Consolidated Fund. Clause 9 authorises the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of expenses incurred for the purposes of the Bill.
It is, of course, impossible to give any forecast estimate of the income of the fund to be established under the Bill or of the liabilities to be met, and it is essential that we should be in a position to provide funds against the contingency that a deficiency might arise from time to time in the fund, especially in the early stages of any war. Any such deficiency, if it arose, would, of course, be borne in mind when fixing future premiums. The intention is that the premium income will be such as to cover all liabilities.
As regards expenses incurred for the purposes of the Bill, it is again impossible to frame accurate forecast estimates, as the magnitude of the business to be handled is dependent upon the nature and extent of any hostilities in which this country might unhappily become involved.
Paragraph 5 of the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum, which is appended to the Bill, gives such indication as is possible of the magnitude of the expenses to be faced. It states that the expenses in peace-time are not expected to exceed £7,000 to £8,000 per annum. This figure represents the present cost of the staff now employed upon two tasks.

One, in liquidating outstanding obligations under insurances and re-insurances granted under the Act of 1939, and, second, in negotiating new re-insurance agreements which will be brought into operation in the event of a further war.
No additional staff will be required under the Bill unless and until hostilities break out. If no new war intervenes in which this country is involved, this rate of expenditure will reduce as the work is completed. The estimate of £80,000 to £100,000 per annum, mentioned in the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum as the war-time rate of expenditure, is based upon the assumption that in the event of a further outbreak of war, it will be necessary to set up a Government insurance office on the scale found necessary in the late war. The estimate is necessarily tentative and the actual expenditure would be dependent upon the volume and nature of the business undertaken and the general level of wages and rents current at the time.
We shall be able to resume discussion on this during the Committee stage, and thus I hope it may be possible to agree to this Resolution now.

Mr. Benn: It is not clear whether the amount of £7,000 to £8,000, which is carried at the moment, and which is expected to continue until such time as insurances have been developed, is carried on a Departmental Vote or whether it becomes an additional burden upon this Committee. May I ask whether this has a special Vote or whether it is carried on the residual fund under the Act of 1939? The Parliamentary Secretary gave an interesting reply, but I do not think it covered this point at all. Who is paying, and in what way, the £7,000 to £8,000 his own Department is incurring at present? An answer would be very helpful.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: While the Parliamentary Secretary is obtaining the information to enable him to answer my hon. Friend, and which must take a few minutes to obtain, digest, understand, and ultimately give to the Committee, could I put another question to him? No doubt he knows the answer from his own knowledge. During the remarks he made just now, he referred two or three times to risks which might arise in the event of a future war.
I am not clear, from the terms of this Resolution or from the Bill or what the Minister said, whether the phrase he used would be limited to a war such as the recent war, or whether it would also include hostilities in which we might be engaged on behalf of the United Nations.

The Deputy-Chairman: The point the hon. Gentleman is now raising appears to be more properly raised on the Bill itself.

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, Mr. Hopkin Morris, I was trying to get some elucidation from the Minister of the remarks he made to the Committee, because they were far from clear.

Mr. Braithwaite: Discussion on the Second Reading debate did range over this aspect and you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, have already ruled that this is not a matter for the Money Resolution. In reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), I thought I had better check my answer. I find that I was correct. The amount is borne on a Departmental vote

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

WAYS AND MEANS

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS in the Chair]

Marine and Aviation Insurance (War Risks)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for authorising the Minister of Transport to undertake the insurance of ships, aircraft and certain other goods against war risks and, in certain circumstances, other risks, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment into the Exchequer of the amount by which the sum standing at any time to the credit of the fund established under the said Act exceeds the sum which, in the opinion of the Minister of Transport and the Treasury, is likely to be required for the making of payments out of that fund; and
(b) the issue out of the Consolidated Fund of the amount of any sum so paid into the Exchequer and the application of that amount in redeeming or paying off debt;
and to authorise the Treasury to raise money and issue securities for the purpose of providing for the issue of sums out of the Con-

solidated Fund to make good any deficiency in the fund established under the said Act.—[Mr. Braithwaite.]

12 midnight.

Mr. Geoffrey Bing: This Resolution was, fortunately, on the Order Paper at the time that we had the Second Reading debate. When the original Bill was introduced the late Mr. Oliver Stanley spoke for 1 hour and 10 minutes. On this occasion the debate was, quite properly, brought to a close by moving the Closure after 2 hours and 20 minutes' debate. I say "quite properly," because this Ways and Means Resolution is a Budget Resolution which enables us to discuss the general basis upon which this Bill is built.
It is for that reason that I rise now to renew the discussion we had on Second Reading, which was cut short, but which hon. Members will probably agree it is more convenient to have in Committee, when we can all speak more than once, than to try to discuss it under Second Reading conditions when we are, naturally limited to one speech each.

Brigadier Christopher Peto: With only seven Opposition Members here.

Mr. Bing: One of the difficulties we are in if there are more than seven Members present on the Government side is that the Parliamentary Secretary is unwilling to speak in any detail. Previously, when his hon. Friends came in because there had been a Count the hon. Gentleman said he would not then make his speech.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): That was not any cause of complaint. My cause of complaint was that I had made notes of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech and was prepared to answer him, but the hon. and learned Gentleman did me the discourtesy of absenting himself from the Chamber when I was about to reply to him.

Mr. Bing: I am sorry that when we discuss this problem the hon. Gentleman's only auditors should be my hon. Friends, but we hoped to be able to bring in some of his hon. Friends from other parts of the building. I am sorry if he feels I was discourteous, and I trust that he will accept my most humble apologies. One of the most interesting things on this was


a question which was not answered on Second Reading, and which is particularly germane to this—

The Deputy-Chairman: I would call the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the Resolution, which merely provides for payment into the Exchequer. I do not think that a discussion on the general principles involved in a Second Reading debate would be in order now.

Mr. Bing: With great respect, this is a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. When we are in Committee of Ways and Means on, for example, the Budget, we have a very wide general discussion.

The Deputy-Chairman: But this is not a Budget discussion. Discussion of this Resolution is confined to very narrow limits.

Mr. Bing: I appreciate that perfectly, but we are, after all, discussing a Resolution in Committee of Ways and Means. What we are discussing is that certain funds should be made available for certain purposes, and that, in fact, we are making provision by way of taxation. Otherwise, there would be no reason for a Ways and Means Resolution at all, and it has been a long-established principle when we are imposing taxation that we are entitled to give the matter some thought and consideration.
The question which I hope I may put the hon. Gentleman without there being any feeling that I am out of order is why is this Resolution necessary? What is the need for it? What is its purpose? I will not go so far as to ask the reason for the Bill for fear of raising points of order, but why should this taxation be imposed at present? What is the urgency of this Measure?
The only explanation we have had so far in the course of the proceedings on the Measure is that it was a Measure which was found by the hon. Gentleman or one of his predecessors in a pigeon hole, and that it was felt it would be a good thing to introduce it. There were a certain number of interruptions on Second Reading, but there was unfortunately, owing to the moving of the Closure, no explanation of the purpose for which the Bill was introduced.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. and learned Gentleman is travelling very wide of the Resolution.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: In order that the Committee may be clear, may I submit, in support of my hon. and learned Friend, that the ambit of discussion on this Resolution is considerably wider than it would be if we were dealing with a Money Resolution.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is no wider than the Resolution states. The debate must be confined to what the Resolution says.

Mr. Bing: In an effort to secure answers to these questions that have been troubling my hon. Friends—and keep in order—may I ask for what purpose is it desired to make these issues? For what purpose is it expedient to authorise payments out of the Consolidated Fund? How is it supposed it is necessary for us to make this sort of provision, and why has it become necessary? What is the change in the situation that has made it necessary to introduce a Motion of this sort? I hope that we shall have some answer from either the Parliamentary Secretary or the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Wedgwood Benn: I feel justified in speaking briefly because I did give warning on Second Reading that I intended to raise these questions of the financial arrangements at the appropriate time which was on Committee of Ways and Means. In paragraph (a) on the Resolution these words occur:
the payment into the Exchequer of the amount by which the sum standing at any time to the credit of the fund established under the said Act exceeds the sum which, in the opinion of the Minister of Transport and the Treasury, is likely to be required for the making of payments out of that fund;
In effect what the Parliamentary Secretary is asking us to pass is an authorisation for his right hon. Friend and the Treasury to raid this fund if ever it builds up a big enough balance. That is what we are being asked to approve. This, in effect—and that is why it comes in Committee of Ways and Means—is taxation on those who provide the fund and on those people who will pay the premiums under this insurance scheme. I should like to know why the Government regard this insurance fund as a com-


mercial concern—not only a profitable commercial concern, but why they should regard the fund so created as a legitimate object for a Treasury raid.
That, in effect, is what this Money Resolution provides. One well understands that it is likely in time of war that the premiums paid in at some time may be greater than the demands made on the fund, and there may be a very big credit balance. I should have thought in those circumstances that if the Minister found he had £20 million or £30 million which he did not need, he ought to be thinking about reducing the premium. He ought not to be authorising the Chancellor of the Exchequer to use it for debt redemption.
That is why this Money Resolution is very unsatisfactory. It asks this House to approve a scheme in which an insurance proposal—which we cannot discuss on a Money Resolution—creates a great deal of money which at some time may build up a big reserve in the fund, and then the Treasury can simply take that money for debt redemption. It is not good enough, because there must be a possibility that when the fund gets big enough the premium should be reduced.
I should like to know how the previous fund worked—whether, in fact, the Treasury did ever find there was so much in the fund that they were able to take some away for debt redemption.

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that that point is in order.

Mr. Benn: I am obliged to you for your intervention, Mr. Hopkin Morris, because I do not want to go outside the rules of order.
Obviously, we are being asked to reenact a Measure and to re-enact, in effect, a Money Resolution which must have been moved when the principal Act was passed in 1939. When I was questioning these arrangements I felt that it might be possible to ask how the old arrangements worked over the last 13 years. There must be some experience of how this has worked, and it would be helpful to know whether the Treasury did ever raid the fund, and if so by how much.
My last point relates to paragraph (b) of the Resolution, which deals with the powers of the Exchequer to raise money

and issue securities for the purpose of providing sums to make good any deficiencies. We now come to the other side of the coin, and we find a very extraordinary situation. I have spoken about the right of the Treasury to raid the fund if the reserves get too big, and we are now asked, in paragraph (b), to authorise the Treasury to raise loans in order to finance it should there be a deficiency in the fund.
This is an extraordinary arrangement. Surely a matter of this kind ought, as far as possible, to be self-balancing. If there is a lot of money in the fund that is not apparently necessary, some of it should be put by in case later on a deficiency arises. I do not see why the Treasury should be authorised to raise money under the Public Works Loans Act, to issue securities to meet a deficiency in the fund and at the same time be able to raid it whenever the fund is profitable. It seems a bad financial arrangement. I do not know if the Financial Secretary could say a word about it. It is an interesting point, and it would help us at this stage if he could say something.

12.15 a.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): The hon. and learned Member for Horn-church (Mr. Bing) asked what was the need of a Ways and Means Resolution. It is required for two reasons; first of all, because, under Clause 6 of the Bill, authorisation is given for the raising of money by loan, and equally because Clause 5 (3) authorises the payment into the Exchequer of moneys accruing from sources other than taxation. Under the ordinary principles governing these matters the authority of this House on a Ways and Means Resolution is required in respect of both those aspects of the Bill.
In answer to the questions raised, both these powers are purely precautionary. It was the policy under the previous Bill, and would, I understand, be the policy in the event of another war under this Bill, to cover the liabilities of the insurance fund from the premiums. But insurance of this nature is of a very uncertain kind, and it is highly desirable to take powers to provide, if it were necessary, for large sums of money being available without delay in the case of a


sudden rush of claims. If a difficult situation arose, it would be absolutely essential for the credit of this country, and indeed for the defence of the realm, that funds should be available immediately to meet these claims. For that reason, this provision is made to deal with that contingency.
The normal intention is that the money shall be raised by Votes, but in case money might not be available to be voted quickly in the uncertain situation which could exist, perhaps, in the early stages of a war, we have taken the precaution of providing that if money is not available, as it were, from the first line of defence, from Votes, it shall be available by making a charge on the Consolidated Fund. We have carried the precaution further to secure that that money could, if necessary, be raised by loan. That is the reason for one half of this Ways and Means Resolution.

Mr. Benn: Would the hon. Gentleman tell us whether these powers were ever used in the last war when the scheme was in operation? Would he also give us the same information about my other question?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I shall deal with both. As it happens—and here I must tread delicately, because you, Mr. Hopkin Morris, pulled up an hon. Member for referring to the last war—so far as the first matter is concerned, the contingency, as I understand it, did not arise; so far as the second contingency was concerned, it did arise.
There may be a large surplus in the event, and that was, in fact, what happened at the end of the last war. It would, quite obviously, be extremely wasteful simply to leave a large fund held in Treasury bills or similar securities idle, and provision is therefore made for its transfer, but for one purpose only—as hon. Members will see from the terms of the Ways and Means resolution—for the redemption of debt. There is, therefore, no question at all of the fund being raided by the Treasury for ordinary revenue purposes. Indeed, the exact converse is the case.
If a large separate fund were to be preserved—far larger than was needed to finance the insurance scheme—it would be a standing temptation to Chancellors

of the Exchequer to raid it. My right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer is completely immune from temptation, but one can never be certain that that would be so in the case of a possible successor.

Mr. Bing: In view of the precedent set by a former Chancellor in raiding the Road Fund, would it not be proper to have some control over this fund?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the fund of the 1939 Act cannot be discussed, I should submit for your ruling, Mr. Hopkin Morris, that it would be difficult to discuss the Road Fund.
It seems to me the whole tenor of the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention is the desirability of putting such a fund out of the reach of Chancellors of the Exchequer, and that is precisely what this proposal does, by limiting it for use in the redemption of debt. It prevents such a fund remaining available to be raided; and it therefore precisely meets the point of both hon. Gentlemen opposite. It is, of course, a matter of commonsense that it would be ludicrous to keep a large sum of money, say, in Treasury bills, when it could be used to redeem debt and save the National exchequer the interest charge on the debt.
There are, therefore, two sides to this Ways and Means resolution. The first is to provide reserve arrangements in case of a heavy spate of demands on the fund. Hon. Members will agree that it is absolutely essential that in those circumstances the claims should be able to be met and met promptly. Secondly, it is to deal with the more agreeable contingency of a large surplus accumulating, and when it is no longer required for this scheme it will be used for the very proper purpose of reducing debt and thereby incidentally saving any future Chancellor of the Exchequer from the dangers of falling into temptation.

Mr. Herbert Butcher (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Mr. Herbert Butcher (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Resolution to be reported this day.

Committee to sit again this day.

ANGLO-BRAZILIAN TRADE

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Butcher.]

12.23 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Thompson: I hope to draw the attention of the House to a matter of great public importance and of considerable urgency. This country is living by buying raw materials from abroad and applying the native skill of our people to the making of goods and the selling of these goods abroad in the markets of the world. Our own food and our own raw materials come from the profits of this process. The efforts of our entire industry now and in the future may depend upon agreements reached between Governments at what are frequently called high level conferences, far away from the manufacturer or his markets.
The influence of Governments has, in fact, now become supreme at every stage of the process of trade. This may be a good thing or a bad thing, but I will not weary the House with discussing that at this time of night. But it is a fact, and because it is a fact, it lays very great responsibility upon the Government to perform its commercial functions not only with care and prudence, but with courage and foresight. The merchant venturer of today, on whom we still rely, travels the world with his bag stuffed full of samples, and his pockets full of licences and permits; and to help him over some of the difficulties which he must encounter in the world today, we have the Export Credit Guarantees Department.
As the House will know, this Department has performed a vital covering and insuring function for the aid of the exporter who had to be assured that he would get paid for his goods, not only in the face of ordinary commercial risk, but also in spite of political and currency manipulations. Under this umbrella, in the sunny export weather of the post-war years, this country built up an important export trade with Brazil. Indeed, the Brazilian market, in 1951, was fourteenth in order of importance of all British export markets of the world, and we have kept many thousands of our people usefully employed in this trade. In return, Brazil has sent us coffee, cotton, pinewood, and hides, among other goods, and

it has been a mutually advantageous trade which has roughly balanced between us over the years.
But now a blight has fallen on it—a sort of commercial foot-and-mouth disease. Several times in the past, Brazil has found herself in difficulties over foreign exchange; she has found herself short of sterling, and several times she has had to resort to quantitative restriction of imports until she has been able to bring her trade more nearly into balance and could see her way to pay her creditors for the goods she has bought. There was such a period in 1951, with no sterling, poor exports, selective limitation of imports, and the whole familiar paraphernalia of controls.
We, over here, naturally observed Brazil's difficulties, and the Export Credit Guarantees Department was compelled to act to protect itself from the likelihood of heavy and increasing losses. The rate for cover for exports to Brazil was raised sharply. There were increased premiums, and exporters had to raise their selling prices. They read the signs in the Department's action, and proceeded to trade with more caution until the situation improved. Insurance rates were reduced, and sterling began to come back. This was a proper insurance operation, and Brazil's trade this year has followed a similar pattern, except that the difficulties seem to have been rather more pronounced. Once again, Brazil has found herself short of sterling to pay for the imports she has taken, and for which the Department had issued a high proportion of cover.
But, here is the important point. This time, the Department has acted very differently. This time, there was no treatment for the disease; it went straight into the slaughter policy; there was no "foot-and-mouth" treatment. At the end of May, exporters were informed that, in two months' time, all cover would be withdrawn. In other words, so far as trade with Brazil is concerned, E.C.G.D. ceased to exist. Of course, one recognises the Department's difficulties, but I think that this action can properly be described as panic action. The consequences threaten to be very serious for our own workers.
In the letter notifying policy holders of this decision, the Department said it would watch events closely, and would


restore cover on a general basis as soon as possible. If that means anything at all, it means that, in spite of Brazil's general problems, there is every reason to have confidence in the future of this great South American country. Brazil has taken very vigorous steps to preserve her stability and economic strength. Imports are by licence only, and one of the conditions of her import programme is that 90 per cent. of the imports must be certified as "essential" goods, or "semi-essential" goods. In her expanding and developing economy, this means capital goods, in the main, which will eventually add to the country's capacity to pay. Other countries are optimistic about Brazil's future.
The British Ambassador in Brazil, addressing the Chamber of Commerce on 17th June, took particular care to emphasise the importance of the sterling market, and to recommend principals that they should impress on their members at home that the present difficulties were not permanent. It seems to me that in his own department his own commercial Minister might have sent precisely the same message to his own Departments here at home.
At the same time, other countries have a high opinion of Brazil. America has made a number of important commercial loans to Brazil. The Export-Import Bank has just announced a 60 million dollar loan for railways. The World Bank continues to lend gold and dollars to Brazil, and Brazil is in the process of negotiating trade agreements with France, Yugoslavia, Germany, Italy and Japan.
A few weeks ago, coincidental with E.C.G.D. stepping out of the trade, there was a Government mission visiting the capitals of Europe for the purpose of negotiating the terms of trade for the future. They did not come to Britain and I would like to know why, when we knew the situation that was developing. They were not even asked to come. After visiting Germany, France, Scandinavia and Switzerland, they reported, on their return to Rio, that they had been greatly impressed by their reception.
Several firms from the Continent are proposing to establish branch factories in Rio to make the things that Brazil needs. A German firm has promised to take over machinery and skilled labour

to make bicycles. The "Financial Times" had this to say:
It must be assumed that these enterprises have taken the future into account and have weighed up what more cautious interests elsewhere cite as the speculated elements in long term undertakings here.
I have here some correspondence from a firm which has an export trade of £200,000 per annum with Brazil. They have orders and import licences, but no E.C.G.D. cover. Their export manager has written to E.C.G.D.:
Brazilian interests will realise that with the lack of supplies it might be worth their while to put up a Brazilian factory. This would not be extremely difficult. By the time that we were in a position to go to the market, a vested interest and a powerful Lobby would already be established.
There are three dangers by which we are now faced. First, Brazil, in her shortage of sterling, will force herself to do without the goods she has formerly bought from us. Already her Government are realistically and properly restricting the issue of import licences to the amount of sterling she has or expects to obtain.
Second, Brazil will make the best arrangements she can with competitors of ours to take her goods in exchange for the things we will no longer supply. I have mentioned some of the negotiations. Brazil has recently arranged a contract with Iceland for the supply of canned fish at a time when our own fishing and canning industries are having as difficult a time as ever before.
Let us be clear about the fact that once we are out of a market like this we are out for a long time, if not for ever. Some exporting houses in Liverpool which I represent have done business in Brazil for 100 to 150 years. Many British firms have spent huge sums in organising their sales and developing their trade. They have a close and intimate knowledge of the country and its people. They are confident of the future of Brazil. I think they fear more for our future if we fail to embrace every opportunity of trading whenever it presents itself and whatever the problems.
Third, Brazil will fill the gaps in her markets by developing industries in her own country to make herself as independent as possible of vagaries of our export policy.
This is an ominous recital not of what might happen, but of what is happening. In the midst of urgent exhortations to "Export or die," we are in danger of precipitating a crisis from which we will not easily emerge. What is happening in the case of Brazil is also happening elsewhere. We have restricted purchases from Europe. They are becoming short of sterling and are restricting their purchases from us. Australia has cut her imports. Israel is in a similar position. In other South American countries the same situation is developing. As each market gets more and more difficult the danger is that we will tend to withdraw more and more into our shell, with less trade, more unemployment, and lower living standards in this country.
I began by saying that this was a serious situation, and I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that it is. Serious it is, but not hopeless; but it seems to me to call for urgent vigorous action by all concerned. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the interest he has shown in this matter, and for the efforts he has made. It has not been an easy subject to deal with on taking up a new appointment.
It seems to me that the exporters and manufacturers who had done so much to build up this trade are entitled to some clear, authoritative statement of the, Government's intentions. By that I mean the Government as a whole and E.C.G.D. in particular, for although E.C.G.D., acts as a commercial organisation on a strictly commercial basis, it cannot be separated from its function as a Government agency. Exporters can only succeed in today's conditions with support of the kind which they get from E.C.G.D., and they ought to know firmly what support they can expect over as long a period as possible.
As an immediate step to stave off what looks like disaster, I suggest to the Department that it ought to restore cover for a further stated period. This cover should be limited in proportion to a basic trading period perhaps excluding certain classes of goods for which special arrangements may be made. The Department would fix realistic rates for this cover taking the risks fully into account.

This is an essential step in restoring the position and making good some of the damage which has been done. But it would be of no value unless the respite which it gave were properly used. It should be used for an immediate conference in this country.
The whole economic policy of the country is involved in this matter, not just trade between this country and one other. The Chancellor of the Exchequer should call together representatives of the Board of Trade, the Department of Overseas Trade and the Foreign Office, as well as manufacturers and exporters, and there should be a frank and complete pooling of ideas. The Department of Overseas Trade should at once prepare the ground for talks with Brazil, either here or in Rio. I would like to see at these talks men who have personal knowledge of this business—the true merchant adventurer as well as the civil servant—the man who gains or loses by his own judgment.
I am alarmed to discover that while Brazil has been negotiating all these agreements with other countries our trade agreement expired in June last year and nothing has been done to make new arrangements by which Brazil can trade with us. I should like to hear that the experiences of the past few months have brought home that the position of E.C.G.D., requires overhaul in the changed export conditions which now prevail. Clearly, the Department cannot be allowed to operate in a way which compels it to direct the entire trade of the country on the most restrictionist lines.
The bankers' umbrella is a classic example; it is lent when the sun shines, and taken away when it starts to rain. I am not criticising the Department for its action over Brazil, although I think it was over-hasty and too drastic. Its present directives probably compel it to act in this way in these circumstances; but as a trading nation we cannot commit ourselves to the mercy of such directives while our trade withers and we die.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say something which will give fresh hope to all the interests involved—manufacturers, exporters and workers—and enable them to face the future with a little more confidence.

12.40 a.m.

The Secretary for Overseas Trade (Mr. H. R. Mackeson): I am most grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walton (Mr. K. Thompson) for raising this subject. How much easier it would be for me to give him the assurances he wants if it had not been that Her Majesty's Government had inherited a situation where our reserves were so desperately low owing to the years that the locusts had eaten.
In the short time at my disposal I should like to say that the Government are more than anxious to co-operate as much as possible with all other Governments, and in particular with the Government of Brazil, so that a high level of trade may continue throughout the world. I think that I can assure the people of Brazil and her Government that no Member of this House will forget that they stood by us in our hour of need in our recent struggle with the Nazis.
I am convinced that Brazil, with an area comprising 6 per cent. of the globe and a population of 52 million, with a density of only 19 people per square mile as compared with about 750 per square mile in this country, will be one of the areas where economic development will be greatest over the coming years—if not in our lives then certainly in the lives of our children.
I agree with my hon. Friend that restriction of trade, especially of the type the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is not in our interest. I must be frank and give the practical view as far as I can, holding the appointment that I do. Exports to Brazil rose from £34 million in 1949 to £54 million in 1951. From January to May of this year they have been running at the rate of £65 million a year.
Imports from Brazil were £23 million in 1949 and £66 million last year. Taking a broad balance, including invisible trade, roughly speaking, last year our trade balanced with Brazil. But this is the serious and vital point. So far this year our imports from Brazil have been running at the rate of only £22,500,000 a year. That unbalance is a very serious matter for a country which has a reserve of only £602 million. Brazil is undoubtedly faced at the moment with a very serious shortage of sterling and, on top of this, arrears of payment for goods already supplied to Brazil are considerable.
One of the major reasons is that Brazilian export prices have been higher than the Government or private buyers in this country, or indeed in any other country, are prepared to pay, because the same goods are obtainable at cheaper prices elsewhere. So far in 1952 the Raw Cotton Commission have made no purchases from Brazil. This is due partly to the recession in the cotton trade but also to the prices which the Brazilians have asked. In the forthcoming buying season, as my hon. Friend knows, 29 per cent. of the purchases of cotton will be made by independent buyers. It is estimated that that will be the figure.
I must say frankly that Brazil's share will depend primarily on whether her cotton is offered by United Kingdom buyers on terms which are fully competitive in price and quality with cotton from other markets. I understand that Brazilian prices have for some time been considerably higher than comparable prices of cotton in other markets. In January they were as much as 16 pence per lb. higher and even today they are 10 pence per lb. more.
In view of the serious situation in our textile industry generally it would be a bold man who would advise us to pay more for our cotton than we need to pay in the world markets. What I have said about Brazilian cotton applies almost equally to other commodities to which my hon. Friend referred such as hides, softwoods, and various other goods. I doubt very much whether a trade conference with Brazil would really help to solve our difficulties, since it seems to me that until Brazilian prices fall to a level which private importers, including the spinners and the Raw Cotton Commission, are prepared to pay, Brazil would ask us to accept goods at prices which we cannot afford, much though we might like to help, and would expect us in return to send them steel, which we can sell in other parts of the world.
My hon. Friend referred rightly to E.C.G.D.'s action. In 1951, E.C.G.D., in effect, issued a warning of the deteriorating situation by putting up their premiums. Later in the year, when trade started to get better, since Brazilian exports largely start to come into this country from April or May onwards, the premiums were duly lowered again. This year, owing to the factors I have men-


tioned, and also to the fact that we have not been buying so much coffee except for re-export, because of the high Brazilian price and because our needs have been met from our own African Colonies, the position is more serious.
In May of this year, the Advisory Council, which has some of the functions of a trustee or governing body, in relation to the E.C.G.D.'s power to issue policies under Section (1) of the Act, decided the time had come when E.C.G.D. had so much money at risk, that some action must be taken to see they did not risk losing any of our small reserves. I do not think, perhaps, that my hon. Friend is quite fair in saying it was a slaughter policy, because the letter which was sent out stated that E.C.G.D. would guarantee shipments against contracts covered by existing policies. In addition, cover will still be maintained for shipments which can be completed by the end of the month, so that there was, in effect, two months' notice of E.C.G.D.'s decision.
The Department decided, on the advice of its Advisory Council, which consists of prominent bankers, industrialists, merchants, and members of the trade union and Co-operative movements, to maintain cover under its contracts policies over the next nine to 12 months for shipments of an estimated £12 to £14 million of orders placed before its cessation of cover. The Department took this decision, and though E.C.G.D. only covers some 30 per cent. of the exports to Brazil, I agree, that it is a serious matter for the firms concerned and, particularly for the firms about which my hon. Friend is concerned, which are comparatively small ones selling consumer goods rather than capital equipment.
The House should know, however, that the E.C.G.D. still risks having to pay out between £750,000 and £1 million a month on claims. Bearing in mind the fact that the amount that the E.C.G.D. had at risk was £22 million, obviously the Department's Advisory Council, to whom we, in this House, should be grateful, would not take the risk of continuing cover. I was relieved that my hon. Friend did not press me to ask the Government to implement Section (2) of the Act, which would mean invoking our power, as a Government, to start using £150 million to prime the pump. It would be a tempting idea, but nobody

would wish to see this artificial restoration of trade.
The Advisory Council will watch every case with the greatest care and attention and I only hope, and think, that it is possible that Brazilian prices will fall and that the time will come, quite soon, when we shall be able to buy, above all else, the cotton which is their vital export and also their coffee, to some extent.
My hon. Friend referred to the delegation which came over to Europe. I have heard about this, and since it caused me some anxiety I have made most careful inquiries into the matter. The delegation was organised and paid for by the Sao Paulo Federation of Industries, whose President, Dr. Ferraz, came to this country and was invited to call at the Board of Trade. He was entertained at the British Industries Fair, and the delegation concerned, which was only a semiofficial delegation, split into component parts of one or two and visited various countries. Dr. Ferraz, the leader of the delegation, informed the Board of Trade that he thought it would be very difficult indeed to get the delegation as a whole to come to this country; but said at the same time that he very much appreciated his reception and treatment in this country.
This is a matter of great importance to our foreign commercial and financial policy. I am certain that no responsible Member can treat it lightly. But when my hon. Friend makes reference to other countries, I must tell him that, in view of the overall deficit of Brazil, it is more than possible that we shall find a situation in which other countries will find it difficult to continue to give unlimited credit to that country, great though her eventual potentialities are.
Within the last few days we have received information that the Brazilians themselves are finding that, owing to their exchange situation, they are obliged to impose restrictions, not only on British goods but on German goods. We simply cannot afford, in our present situation, to export goods unless we get a reasonably quick return for our money, and I doubt very much whether other countries will be able to afford, from a long-range point of view, to continue their present credit policies.
It is to be hoped that the present situation will resolve itself by Brazilian goods


becoming available on the world markets at reasonable prices, so that she can buy not only the capital equipment which she must buy, and the oil, coal, steel and heavy equipment which she needs, but also consumer goods and textiles which will be of so much value to her people. We have an open mind on this, and we should be more than prepared to receive representations. I, personally, shall be only too glad to answer any questions or correspondence on this matter, but I must be firm and frank on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.
We cannot risk our resources in any way, for if we fail to maintain the value of the £ and allow our slender reserves to slip away we shall not only be deserting the interests of our own people and risking full employment in this country, but we should also be doing untold damage to our friends in the sterling bloc. Above all else, we would cause harm to people of the Commonwealth of Nations, who are

doing so much now to try to stop any losses of sterling, after suffering so grievous a blow during this recent period when, unfortunately, the sellers' market has gone and the buyers' market exists.
I think and hope that the Brazilians will find it possible to offer us their cotton and other raw materials at a price at which we can afford to buy. They know well that there is nothing but good will in all parts of this country towards them, but under the existing circumstances, we shall do our utmost to resolve this difficulty, having regard to the fact that it is principally a commercial matter.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half on hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Six Minutes to One o'Clock a.m.